Next Article in Journal
Field Incubation Studies on Nutrient Mineralization of Bagasse on Spodosols and Histosols in Florida
Next Article in Special Issue
Some Physiological Responses of Native Sheep Breeds to Environmental Conditions during Grazing in Natura 2000 Habitats
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Organic Additives for Replanted Soil in Apple Tree Production in a Fruit Tree Nursery
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Konik Horses Grazing and Meteorological Conditions on Wetland Communities
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Challenges of Pasture Feeding Systems—Opportunities and Constraints

by
Barbara Wróbel
1,*,
Waldemar Zielewicz
2 and
Mariola Staniak
3
1
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Institute, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
2
Department of Grassland and Natural Landscape Sciences, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznan, Poland
3
Department of Forage Crop Production, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation-State Research Institute, Czartoryskich 8, 24-100 Puławy, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 5 April 2023 / Revised: 25 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 28 April 2023

Abstract

:
Grazing plays an important role in milk production in most regions of the world. Despite the importance of grazing, current trends in livestock farming in Europe are causing a decline in the popularity of pasture-based feeding of dairy cows. This paper aims to provide an overview of the challenges faced by the pasture feeding system under climate change. Grazing lands provide ecosystem services including regulation and storage of water flows, nutrient cycling, and C sequestration. Livestock grazing is the most important factor shaping and stabilizing pasture biodiversity. Some opportunities for pasture feeding are the health-promoting and nutritional qualities of milk and milk products, especially milk from pasture-fed cows. The beneficial effects of pasture feeding on animal health and welfare are not insignificant. Available organizational innovations can help better manage livestock grazing and, above all, better understand the impact of the grazing process on the environment and climate change.

1. Introduction

Grazing has existed since the beginning of agriculture. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, about 60% of the world’s grasslands (slightly less than half of the world’s land area) are covered by grazing systems. Grazing systems provide about 9% of the world’s beef production and about 30% of the world’s sheep and goat meat production. For about 100 million people in arid areas and probably a similar number elsewhere, grazing livestock is the only possible source of livelihood [1]. Pasture-based dairy production systems are mainly found in temperate regions, where grass is the cheapest feed used in milk production [2]. Pasture grazing can be used in feeding systems for dairy cows in other parts of Europe as well, but its importance is lower [3]. It is estimated that 98% of Irish and 92% of British dairy farms operate pasture-based systems, compared to only 20% in the Czech Republic, less than 10% in Greece, and virtually none in Bulgaria [4]. Even herds with access to pasture are typically kept indoors during the winter and around calving [5].
In general, for milk production, pasture grass is a higher quality forage than grass silage [6]. In temperate regions of Europe, grass growth is highly variable [7], varying among years [8], seasons, as well as regions [9]. It depends on many factors: pasture management, the sward renewal practices used, the level of fertilization, the course of weather conditions (e.g., precipitation, temperature, solar radiation) and soil type. The nutritional value of pasture sward varies depending on the season, growth stage, and age of regrowth.
The quality of pasture grass can be optimized through rational grazing and pasture management. For example, rotation length, biomass weight before grazing [10], and sward height pre- and pos- grazing [11] can affect grass quality, as well as grass supply. A leafy sward in spring has a high nutritive value, while a sward at the reproductive stage in summer has a higher fiber content and lower digestibility [12]. The nutritional value of pasture sward also depends on their botanical composition. Swards with a significant proportion of legumes often have a higher feed value than grass-only swards [13,14].
Rationally used pasture provides grazing animals with high-quality roughage, containing mainly energy, protein, macro- and microelements, and vitamins [15,16]. In addition to valuable species of grasses and legumes, the composition of pasture sward includes dicotyledonous plants called herbs. They contain many valuable biologically active substances such as tannins, flavonoids, saponins, pectins, terpenes, alkaloids, phenols, as well as essential oils [17,18]. These compounds have positive effects on cattle gastrointestinal function and health (antioxidant and antiparasitic effects, enhancement of the immune system) [19,20], and the quality of beef and dairy products [21].
Livestock grazing influences pasture biodiversity, particularly the botanical composition of plant communities [22,23,24], as well as the quantity and quality of forage produced [25], the dynamics of sward regrowth [26], the variability of species occurrence and contribution, and the landscape that pastures create [27,28]. Pasture use contributes to a rich diversity and variability in the vegetation cover maintaining the maintenance of all forms of biodiversity [29,30,31]. However, the diversity of plant communities created by grazing by animals can change depending on environmental conditions, including regional climate variability [32], grazing intensity [33], and soil nutrient availability [34]. Grazing lands also provide ecosystem services including regulation and storage of water flows [35], nutrient cycling, and C sequestration [36,37].
However, in addition to the advantages of pasture feeding, related to the ability of cattle to consume good quality roughage, the positive impact on animal welfare, and the quality of animal products, there are unfortunately also some difficulties. It was calculated that a grass-only diet can support milk production levels of 22 to 28 kg cow−1 day−1 [38]. Therefore pasture-based feeding of dairy cows is used to a greater extent only on farms with average productivity. Although green fodder completely covers energy and protein requirements, there may be periodic minor deficiencies and fluctuations in individual components due to grazing dates and weather conditions [39].
Despite the importance of grazing, current trends in livestock farming in Europe are causing a decline in the popularity of pasture-based feeding of dairy cows [40]. The reasons for this vary, mainly due to the different farming systems that typically exist in each region [41]. In Central Europe, dairy farmers are under pressure to maximize milk production [42]. For this reason, dairy cows are often not grazed but are kept indoors for their entire lives [43] and fed mainly silage and concentrate feeds [44]. Pasture feeding, in some respects, is more time- and labor-consuming than keeping cattle indoors or in loose housing systems. Grazing livestock on pasture also involves costs associated with the purchase and installation of pasture fencing and the designation of paddocks [45,46]. In addition, electric fences and metal mesh structures can disrupt the natural landscape and prevent the migration of some wildlife species [47,48].
Agriculture is significantly influenced by climate change, while also being a driver of climate change through the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Therefore, reducing the carbon footprint generated by agriculture is key to reducing climate change. At the same time, agriculture and forestry can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Particularly pastures play a significant role in climate change due to massive stores and fluxes of C [49].
This paper aims to provide an overview of the challenges faced by the pasture feeding system under climate change.

2. Challenges from the Environment

The EU’s common agricultural policy and environmental legislation, such as the EU Nitrates Directive, are putting pressure on farmers to ensure that EU milk production is both economically and environmentally sustainable. Global food production accounts for 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, causing climate change [50]. Ruminant animals are a major contributor to these emissions, particularly through belched methane, which is produced during the intestinal fermentation process [51,52]. The detrimental effects of methane in the atmosphere have led to movements and social initiatives to reduce animal production to ensure a rapid reduction in atmospheric methane emissions as the fastest route in mitigating progressive climate change [53].

2.1. Carbon Sequestration

Climate change has created the need to find solutions that can counter greenhouse gas emissions. One of these is the development and maintenance of natural carbon (C) sink habitats, such as forests and permanent grasslands.
Grasslands are one of the most important biomes on earth [54]. They are estimated to contain about 30% of the world’s carbon stocks [55]. Their role in carbon sequestration is important, as it is estimated that it could be around 590 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions [56]. According to Bai and Cotrufo [49], the achievable soil organic carbon sequestration potential in global grasslands is 2.3 to 7.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (CO2 e year−1) for biodiversity restoration, 148 to 699 megatons of CO2 e year−1 for improved grazing management, and 147 megatons of CO2 e year−1 for sown legumes in pasturelands. However, the intensity of sequestration and carbon storage in grazing lands depends on the climate, location in the landscape, land use, as well as plant community type [57,58]. Studies on the effects of grazing intensity on carbon sequestration showed that intensive grazing mostly reduced C storage, while low- to moderate-intensive grazing balanced the amount of C sequestration with livestock production [59]. Adaptive Multi-Paddock (MPA) grazing [60] as well as “rotatinuous stocking” [61] has been shown to sequester more soil carbon than the traditional continuous and rotational grazing used in the past by many farmers. Research by Funakawa [62] indicates that high soil acidity can inhibit soil microbial activity and increase soil organic carbon accumulation. This research suggests that organic carbon storage and the soil biodiversity-carbon relationship are controlled by many interrelated processes and complex plant–soil feedbacks.
Over the past decade, the area of grassland has been shrinking while the area of arable land has been increasing, suggesting a continued conversion of grassland to arable land [63]. It is estimated that about 20% of the world’s grasslands have been converted to arable land, leading to a loss of up to 60% of soil carbon stocks [64,65].
Another problem is the progressive degradation of grassland defined as a long-term decline in ecosystem function and measured in terms of net primary productivity [66], which results in the loss of carbon stocks in the grassland ecosystem. Stopping the processes of grassland degradation and its conversion to arable land would conserve grassland soil carbon stocks. Reversing the practices that have led to grassland degradation could increase ecosystem carbon stocks by sequestering atmospheric CO2 in grassland soils. Estimates of the carbon sequestration potential of pastures are not well understood [67]. The lack of certain data and knowledge on this topic is due to several limitations. First, pasture data are collected on a smaller scale than data on forests and croplands [68]. Second, information on how pasture management affects soil carbon stocks is limited to only certain regions of the world.

2.2. Air Protection

Livestock contributes to greenhouse gas emissions in the form of methane (CH4) from enteric fermentation, nitrous oxide (N2O) from the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and N2O and CH4 from animal excreta management and deposition. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is also produced from the use of energy and fossil fuel on farms [69]. However, the amounts are not as significant as previously assumed. For example, in Germany (the largest producer of milk and pork and the second largest producer of beef in the EU), agriculture was directly responsible for 8.2% of all GHG emissions in 2020 [70]. Moreover, agriculture is the only sector that can remove GHG emissions from the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere can be placed back into soils through natural grazing [71].
The amounts of waste production and gas emissions (CH4 and CO2) are largely determined by the intensity of animal production [72]. Studies show that the more intensively animals are reared, the lower the unit environmental load. The reason for this is more intensive feeding (amount of protein and energy supplied per unit of feed), better utilization of the animal’s genetic potential for growth (higher efficiency of digestive processes and muscle tissue growth), and thus shorter rearing times. In dairy cattle, on the other hand, it has been calculated that a three-fold increase in milk production (from 4000 to 12,000 kg per year) decreases the methane emission per kg of product by only 48% [73]. The decrease in methane production following the increase in milk production is due to a change in nutrition, involving a reduction in the proportion of roughage in favor of concentrate in the diet, and a consequent change in the rumen fermentation profile (acetate fermentation decreases and propionate fermentation increases). To improve the climate, it would make sense to selectively reduce livestock production, above all those with high methane and CO2 emissions.
For reducing greenhouse gas emissions, grazing, and feeding, management strategies are essential. Rational grazing management harvests higher-value forage, allowing more efficient use of nutrients, which increases animal productivity [74]. Additional opportunities to reduce gaseous emissions associated with ruminant food production include improved livestock health, fertility, and productivity. Increased productivity per head in the form of milk production or faster meat gains per day can reduce the number of animals required to maintain a given level of food produced. Another way is to use feed additives to reduce the intensity of methane production in the gut and to improve the quality and digestibility of grassland feed, which will ultimately reduce methane production [75].

2.3. Environment Protection

Grazing has several effects on the environment but the most evident is reduction of nutrient loss. Reduced grazing results in reduced mineral losses and less imbalance between mineral inputs and mineral emissions. This is especially true for nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. When animals graze on pasture, manure ends up in a small area of pasture where nutrients cannot be fully utilized, and therefore losses are more likely. It is estimated that keeping cows indoors year-round improves nutrient use efficiency and reduces the need to purchase mineral fertilizers by about 50 kg ha−1 per year compared to the grazing system [76]. In addition, grazing affects the type of nitrogen loss.
Nitrogen cycling in a grazing system is influenced by the diet of the grazing animal and the distribution of ingested N within the animal [77]. In general, 75 to 95% of ingested N is returned to the soil, and about 70% of this N is excreted in the urine [78]. Thus, the main source of nitrate leaching from pastures is livestock urine, and during grazing relatively large amounts of nitrate may be leached [79]. Although leaching and volatilization (of animal urine) represent the main pathways of N loss in extensive grasslands, denitrification is a major pathway of loss in fertilized pastures which have a larger pool of readily metabolizable N sources [80].
By contrast, keeping cows indoors all year and manure collecting and spreading it on the land result in more ammonia volatilization. This ammonia volatilization may be partly reduced by adapting the feed strategy (less protein in the ration) [81]. Keeping cows indoors all year may cause higher energy use and hence the CO2 emissions because of the need for machinery use. The grazing system does not affect methane emissions from grasslands themselves [82]. Keeping cows indoors all year, however, may lead to more methane emissions than grazing [83].

2.4. Protection of Biodiversity

Permanent grasslands, including pastures, are characterized by a diverse species composition, which is the result of interspecific competition modified by human activity. The most important role is played by habitat conditions and the method and intensity of agricultural use, which determine the type of sward and its natural values.
One of the characteristics of high nature-value grasslands is their species richness. However, maintaining this richness is not a priority on farms focused on intensive livestock production. On such farms, the most important thing is to obtain large quantities of valuable fodder, so the composition of the sward is generally characterized by a poor species composition, dominated by noble grasses, with a proportion of legumes and a small number of herbaceous species, more of which are regarded, from a production point of view, as weeds, i.e., a symptom of degradation. On the other hand, the maintenance of a high species diversity is favored by extensive grazing and the limited use of pratotechnical treatments.
One of the most important factors shaping and stabilizing valuable communities in permanent grasslands is sustainable grazing, which is sometimes used as a protective treatment to stop the encroachment of secondary succession [84,85,86]. Grazing has a beneficial effect on floristic composition and sward structure, contributing to the maintenance of an open pastoral landscape and preserving habitat species richness. Vegetation structure in pastures is the result of environmental processes and factors determined by grazing animals, i.e., their food requirements and preferences and grazing intensity. In addition, moderate trampling of the sward by grazing animals leads to localized damage to the sward and the formation of germination gaps in which seeds can germinate and, in addition, allow light access to the lower parts of the sward and better development of light-loving species [87]. In addition, animals carry diaspores of plants, facilitating their reproduction and spread. Animal droppings provide nutrients point-wise to the habitat, leading to the production of numerous microhabitats [88].
Due to the habitat conditions, grassland communities situated on fairly rich mineral soils with low groundwater levels are mainly suitable for grazing. In the UK, grazing is a valued form of grassland conservation on mineral, wet, fluctuating wet, and boggy soils [89]. Habitats developed on moist organic soils should not be grazed too extensively because of the risk of more rapid sward and topsoil destruction compared with bog habitats located on the mineral ground.
Studies show that in some habitat types, extensive grazing after harvesting ha a beneficial effect on the floristic diversity of the meadow [86,87,90,91,92]. A periodic change of use, in particular the introduction of grazing every few years in some types of hay meadows, can also be beneficial. This has a beneficial effect on the sooding of the sward. In addition, grazing animals, through gnawing and trampling, reduce the expansion of undesirable species that did not disappear under the influence of mowing alone, e.g., Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench [93,94,95].
The intensity of plant grazing is directly influenced by the weight of the animals grazing a particular area at a given time (the so-called pasture load). Over-intensive grazing (too high a stocking rate or load), which results in almost the entire sward being grazed, can lead to the elimination of rare plant species and impoverishment of the habitat structure [96]. It can also lead to soil exposure, resulting in soil drying [87]. In turn, overextensification of grazing contributes to disturbances in species composition and encroachment of expansive vegetation. The potential of the pasture is also not fully exploited. Too low a stocking rate and pasture load lead to selective grazing of plants and an increase in the proportion of herbaceous vegetation, with a consequent deterioration of the forage and wildlife value of the habitat [87]. In turn, complete abandonment of grazing and lack of use contribute to changes in habitat conditions that initiate secondary succession. The habitat loses valuable and characteristic plant species, and the expansion of competing species begins with ruderal, herbaceous, alien, and forest vegetation [97]. This prevents the development of other plants and provides a refuge for pests of neighboring crops. This phenomenon is particularly exacerbated in areas, where agricultural production encounters environmental barriers, such as mountainous areas or unregulated river valleys. Fallowing or overgrazing are the main threats to extensive pastures, especially species-rich thermophilous grasslands, whose unique flora and fauna depend on extensive grazing. Inappropriate use results in their conversion to poor grasslands and, in addition, the breeding grounds of birds such as lapwing, ruff, and stonechat are destroyed. A decline in the number of these species, caused by the disappearance of traditional agriculture, is observed both in Poland and in the rest of Europe [98]. Conservation practice has shown that the most effective tool for active protection of these birds is extensive grazing by cattle and horses, which creates a favorable mosaic of lower and higher vegetation and covered soil [98].
Each species of grazing animal behaves and affects the vegetation in a distinctive way [87,99]. Cows, horses, and sheep are the most commonly grazed animals, less frequently goats, geese, and other animals. The most versatile and common is cattle, known for their high tolerance to forage consumed and too moist habitats and sodden ground. In addition, the dietary preferences of cattle result in some plant species gnawing low and others only in the top parts, which affects the regrowth and botanical composition of the sward. Horses are more demanding than cattle, but as the growing season progresses they begin to reach for species not previously eaten. They trample the sward and soil more strongly than cows, which can be used in habitats where coarse vegetation needs to be disposed of [100]. Sheep, on the other hand, are animals that selectively take up plants and bite them low [101]. In the mountains, pastures are quite commonly grazed, contributing to the conservation of habitats and rare and protected species [102]. On pastures located in areas more difficult to access by larger ruminants, goats are often used in addition to sheep [103]. They are considered to be not very selective but prefer legume plants and bark, as well as leaves and shoots of trees and shrubs. Mixed grazing of several animal species simultaneously can also be used.
Extensive grasslands used to be very common. They can be located in wet habitats, moderately water-rich areas, and even on poor and dry soils. In some areas of the world (e.g., Australia), grazing cattle, sheep, or goats is the only way to utilize vast areas of pasture in arid regions that are often too barren and vegetation-poor for intensive animal breeding [104]. In Africa, on the other hand, extensive semi-arid savannah pastures are used by various wild ungulates in addition to cattle. Excessive stocking of such pastures with cattle is detrimental to wild herbivores. Lower cattle stocking rates and extensive grazing have been more beneficial to vegetation and wild herbivores and to maintaining satisfactory livestock productivity [105].
Grazing on pastures located in moist habitats improves animal production rates, as well as sward persistence and flora biodiversity [106]. Lowland pastures include grasslands developed in wet habitats with mineral soils (riparian and oak-hornbeam). They are characterized by an increased proportion of Juncus effusus (L.), Juncus articulatus (L.), and also Ranunculus repens (L.) and Agrostis stolonifera (L.) [107]. The most valuable lowland pastures are located in river valleys, on mineral soils characterized by high resistance to gnawing and trampling. The vegetation forms a relatively low and dense carpet-like sward. They are found in intensively grazed areas of Europe in relatively fertile locations and on moderately moist soils. Lowland pastures are threatened primarily by intensification of use and the increased burden of long-term grazing. Overgrazing leads to the conversion of extensive pastures into poor and low-yielding grasslands [108,109].
Traditions of sheep and cattle grazing are strongly linked to mountain and foothill areas. In the past, grazing in mountain areas was the primary form of utilization of the grasslands above the forest boundary. Nowadays, grazing on mountain pastures, which when not used, are overgrown with bushes and trees, has a special natural role. Many extensive mountain pastures are characterized by a high richness of flora, with a high proportion of Cynosurus cristatus (L.) and Festuca rubra (L.) [110]. A slightly different type of montane community is poor extensive pastures abundantly overgrown by Nardus stricta (L.), Arnica montana (L.), and Carlina acaulis (L.) and various orchid species.
Grasslands with a predominance of Armeria maritima (Willd.) are typical pastures located on dry and sandy soils in river valleys and on strongly drying riparian sites in summer. Characteristic species growing in such pastures are also: Thymus serpyllum (L.) and Dianthus deltoides (L.). Pilosella officinarum (Vaill.) and Galium verum (L.) can also often be found on such sites. Among the grasses, narrow-leaved species predominate, such as Festuca ovina (L.), Festuca rubra (L.), and Agrostis capillaris (L.) [111,112].
Pastures and thermophilous grasslands are among the rarest plant communities. Their habitat conditions and species composition are similar to steppe communities. They occur, above all, in the upland areas of Central and Eastern Europe and the valleys of large rivers on their steep southern slopes. A characteristic feature of these habitats is the high abundance of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in loess and rendzina soils. The traditional use is extensive grazing by cattle, sheep, goats, and sometimes horses. The main natural value of thermophilic grasslands and pastures is the high plant species richness. Among the grasses, Stipa joannis (Čelak.) and Stipa capillata (L.) are the most abundant in the pasture sward. Species of small sedges such as Carex humilis (L.) and Carex supina (Willd.) are also encountered. The most abundant herbs are Scabiosa canescens (Waldst. & Kit.), Prunella grandiflora (L.) Scholler. and Salvia pratensis (L.) [113,114].
A major threat to meadows and pastures is posed by alien invasive species, which are becoming increasingly widespread and are encroaching primarily on unused or overly extensively used habitats. The encroachment of alien species is a threat to native flora. Invasion by alien species can result in a change in the species composition of the community or the complete elimination of native species, leading to the formation of communities with a dominance of alien species. The displacement of native species poses a threat to them and may lead to a reduction in the gene pool of the natural vegetation [115].

3. Impact of Grazing on Animal Productivity and the Environment

The production results of grazing animals depend on the stocking method and management of grazing. In general, there are two stocking methods, i.e., rotational and continuous stocking, among which different modifications are used depending on the various factors. Farmers have different considerations when choosing a stocking methods. In their choice, they may take into account the impact of grazing on yield and forage utilization, but also many other factors such as environmental impact, animal welfare, and other aspects. In some countries, legislation is a decisive factor. Grazing methods and pasture organization should be optimally adapted to the possibilities and specific characteristics of the farm.

3.1. Stocking Methods

The cheapest stocking method for cattle, mainly used on extensive pastures, involving continuous stocking of the sward, from spring to autumn, over the entire pasture area, is free grazing. The supply of forage depends on the season, with an over-supply of forage in spring, while there can be a periodic shortage of forage in summer when rainfall is scarce. Carrying out maintenance and rational fertilization in this stocking method is very difficult. Pastures under this stocking method are prone to a more rapid degradation process, involving the disappearance of valuable grass and legumes and the development of weeds [116].
All modern intensive stocking methods use the principles of rotational stocking [117]. Rotational stocking involves the frequent movement of livestock through a series of pasture subdivisions called paddocks [118]. Rotational stocking has many potential economic and environmental advantages [119,120] such as increases herbage production for livestock [121,122] and improves animal production [123], prevents overgrazing, and reduces soil erosion [124]. Rotational stocking has been found to improve soil microbial activity [125], which may promote greater stabilization of organic matter [126]. Moreover, rotational stocking results in fewer herd health problems and many others. Jordon et al. [127] provided empirical confirmation of the mechanisms by which rotational stocking and increasing sward biodiversity through the inclusion of perennial herbaceous plants (herbaceous strips) can increase forage production and animal growth rates. However, some studies have shown that rotational stocking does not provide any unique ecological or agricultural benefits compared to continuous stocking [120]. But, more important than the stocking method is the grazing intensity which is thought to have a major impact on soil organic carbon storage and soil quality indicators in grassland agroecosystems. Moreover, soil improvement resulting from intensive rotational stocking does not occur rapidly [122,128]. It takes three to five years to start seeing beneficial changes in vegetation cover and soil microbial activity [129]. In general, intensive rotational stocking is more likely to be successful in areas with higher rainfall [106]. In northern Spain, where the average annual rainfall is 1000 mm, intensive rotational stocking by sheep resulted in higher forage production and increased carbon sequestration [130]. In more arid areas, intensive rotational stocking with frequent movement of animals can result in reduced weight gain [104]. Rotational stocking also has some disadvantages. It requires more fencing and labor (an effective alternative to traditional fencing is virtual fencing). It may result in soil compaction and degraded water quality if livestock is not moved regularly, as well as may increase internal parasites in irrigated rotational pastures.
To some extent similar to rotational stocking is guarded grazing, where the herd is supervised by a shepherd. This involves the animals returning after a certain period to areas previously grazed. This stocking method is practiced mainly in the mountains when grazing sheep and can be of great importance in naturally valuable areas as a factor stimulating the increase of their biodiversity and the preservation of naturally valuable areas [131].
A very efficient method of rotational stocking is tethered grazing (staking the animals). The great advantage of this method is the possibility of feeding each animal individually, easily regulating the amount of forage available to it. This stocking method is mainly used on farms with few cattle or horses. Staking causes some inconvenience due to the need to move the stakes and water the animals (bringing them to the watering hole or bringing water to the pasture). When grazing in this method, the animals have limited movement and, if left in the same place for a long time, they may eat the sward too intensively, which can cause damage by too much trampling or low biting.
Continuous stocking is the least controlled of the stocking methods. It consists of grazing the sward, over the whole or partially regulated area of the pasture, from spring to autumn in a slow method. The basis of this method is the control of the height of the grazed sward. As the sward is grazed and the rate of increase decreases, additional spare areas are incorporated into the grazing area to provide a reserve of feed for the whole herd. This method is often used by farmers with relatively large pasture areas and low numbers of livestock. Continuous stocking usually results in lower productivity per animal and lower output per unit of land. This stocking method is applied for animals that do not require high maintenance, such as sheep, dry cows, growing heifers, and low-milking cows. It requires lower amounts of labor, fencing, and water sources. The animals selectively graze the most palatable forage, which generally increases gains per animal. Selective grazing reduces total pasture productivity and leads to overgrazing in some parts of the pasture. Forage use can be improved by varying the stocking rate or temporarily fencing off part of the pasture for herbage harvest (“buffer” system).
Ultra-high Stock Density (UHSD) or commonly known as “Mob Grazing” or “Flash Grazing” is a short-duration, high-density grazing with a longer than usual grass recovery period. It has been proposed as a way to increase soil carbon storage and range quality. This system has been adopted in the USA, Canada, and the UK [132] for intensive grazing of cattle, sheep, and goats. High stocking densities result in a high fertilizing effect of the manure left on the small pasture area. The high stocking rate of the pasture means that much of the plant biomass is trampled by the hooves of the animals into the ground to form mulch that protects the soil from erosion. Plant residues and animal excreta contribute to an increase in organic matter content and improve soil nutrient abundance, which positively influences soil microorganisms and stimulates plant production [133]. However, some studies show a negative effect of mob-grazing on soil organic matter and other desirable properties of pastures [134]. According to [135], high densities of livestock increase soil C in warm-season grasses and decrease soil C in cool-season grasses. Moreover, mob-grazing can cause soil erosion by enhancing soil compaction, which has a negative impact on soil water infiltration and plant growth [57,136]. There is a need for a better understanding of the mechanisms by which mob-grazing may positively or negatively influence soil C storage and vegetation [120].
Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing has been developed as a conservation-oriented grazing management approach for improving the ecological function of grazed ecosystems by continuously adjusting the number of grazing animals and the duration of herbivory in response to changes in forage availability [137,138]. Multi-paddock grazing management has been recommended since the mid-20th century as an important tool to adaptively manage rangeland ecosystems to sustain productivity and improve animal management. AMP grazing employs multiple paddocks per herd to enable short grazing periods leaving sufficient post-herbivory plant residue for regrowth, and long recovery periods to accommodate seasonal variation in plant regrowth [139]. It was found that, based on restored soil health, water conservation, and improved ecosystem services, AMP grazing was superior to heavy continuous grazing [121]. Similarly, it was found by Hillenbrand et al. [140] that AMP grazing improves the forage biomass, water infiltration, and total soil carbon concerning heavy continuous grazing [60]. It was confirmed that long-term AMP grazing improves streamflow, water balances, and water quality at the ranch and watershed scales [141,142,143]. AMP grazing also increases net primary productivity, soil C and N, and reduced C losses in runoff and sediment [144].
Alternative pasture management which can be used to increase ruminant performance and reduce gastro-intestinal nematodes is mixed grazing. In Germany, sheep and goat grazing is used to rehabilitate areas over-exploited by intensive cattle grazing [145]. This is due to the different dietary preferences of the different animal species. Sheep and goats eat woody and low-value plants that are avoided by cattle. In addition, sheep are less picky about the plants growing next to the dung left by cattle, which contributes to the increased forage used. Mixed grazing, compared to grazing only one animal species, not only allows better utilization of the sward [146] but increases the biodiversity of the sward and soil bacterial flora [147,148], arthropods, and birds [149]. Research in Ireland on cattle and sheep herds showed that sheep follow grazing after cattle promoted a higher proportion of clover in the sward and a greater number of clover volunteers from seed not digested by cattle and sheep [146]. An additional benefit of such grazing is less sward damage, reduced invasion by animal parasites and the emergence of more beneficial plant-pollinating insects [150].
The silvopastoral grazing system (SPS) involves grazing animals in wooded areas, traditional orchards, and groves (Figure 1). It is a system of short rotation of animals staying in tree-lined pastures. This system is commonly found throughout the world. Trees and bushy vegetation provide shelter for the animals, but can also provide food [151]. Husak and Grado [152] found that this grazing system contributes to sustainable livestock production and increases the productivity, profitability, and viability of area use. There is considerable evidence that SPS can increase production efficiency, increase carbon sequestration, and improve N cycling on land used for livestock production [153]. Other advantages of this system are the restoration of uncultivated land to agricultural production, low labor inputs compared to intensive production, improved welfare of beef cattle (minimal stress on the animals), and high-quality beef sold as an organic product. This is supported by a study by Skonieski et al. [154], according to which the SPS improved the welfare of grazing Jersey cows, as evidenced by an improved physiological response to heat stress, increased grazing time, and reduced standing time (resting + ruminating) compared to cows grazing on conventional pasture.
Sometimes, innovative producers are grazing sheep in the areas occupied by farms with solar PV panels. These surfaces also need tending, mowing, and biomass removal, so sheep and goats are increasingly being used for this purpose. Grazing sheep under such panels is possible without special modifications to the photovoltaic installations. Grazing cattle under solar panels requires stronger support poles and panels installed higher off the ground [155,156].

3.2. Organisational Innovations in Grazing

In addition to the advantages of pasture feeding, related to the possibility for cattle to consume good quality roughage, the positive impact on animal welfare, and the higher quality of animal products, there are unfortunately also some disadvantages (Table 1). Pasture feeding is undoubtedly more time-consuming and labor-intensive in some respects (animal monitoring and grazing management) compared to keeping cattle in alcove systems. Grazing animals on pastures also entails costs related to the purchase and installation of structural elements for pasture fencing [45]. But undoubtedly grazing is the cheaper way to feed domestic herbivores, and structures to maintain animals indoors have a higher cost than to maintain in pastures even with different paddocks.
Innovations and modern technologies applied to grasslands aim to facilitate and improve the process of rational grazing management of livestock herds. Increasingly, modern computer technology is being used in grassland management (Table 2). Drones, specialized sensors, and sensors are being used to make more efficient use of pastures and to monitor the availability of forage for cattle on an ongoing basis (Figure 2). On an ongoing, real-time basis, daily grass growth, the amount of forage consumed by the animals, and the condition of the soil can be monitored and determined. It is also possible to locate animals in the pasture in real-time and assess their activity, behavior, and the activities they are performing at the moment [157].

3.2.1. Virtual Fencing

In countries where the pasture feeding system is well developed, virtual pasture fences are used, delimiting the area to be grazed. When the animal approaches the virtual zone, it is given an audible signal, which tells it to stop. The farmer remotely—in the office, at the computer—determines the area to be grazed, over which the cows move independently [157]. Virtual fencing devices use an algorithm that combines GPS animal positioning with animal behavior to implement the virtual fence [158,159]. Like conventional fencing, virtual fencing is used to provide a boundary to the grazing area to deter animals from moving further, but unlike conventional fencing, it does not create a physical barrier [160]. With a virtual fence system, animals learn a virtual barrier not to cross by associating a sound stimulus with an electrical stimulus. When approaching the fence boundary, a warning acoustic signal is triggered and the electrical impulse stimulus from the collar is only produced as a punishment if the animal continues to move forward. If the animal turns away or stops at the audible signal, the electrical impulse stimulus is not initiated by the collar. Cattle have been shown to learn this association easily in several trials; however, there is a high variability in learning and behavioral responses between individuals [161,162,163]. Virtual fencing is highly useful and has great potential for controlling sheep distribution during grazing, but the development of virtual fencing technology for sheep grazing is still less advanced than for cattle [164,165,166,167].

3.2.2. Automation of Fences in Pastures

Automatic gates on individual plots can be used to control individual groups of cows divided by yield to grant them access to different areas of pasture with different yields. Control can be implemented by programming the time the animals are in the quarters or by individual remote control by the farmer. The gate system can be combined with an AMS automatic milking system [168,169]. GPS-guided mobile fences are also used, which make a new area of pasture with fresh feed available every pre-programmed time for the grazing cattle herd [41]. Currently, for the most part, the organization of grazing and control of the allocation of plots is limited to the labor-intensive and less efficient conventional fencing system [170].

3.2.3. State-of-the-Art Applications and Programmes to Predict Pasture Yields

A new feature is the automatic mowing of the pasture underplanting immediately after the cows have grazed on the plot. There are also more and more computer programmes available to assist the farmer in grazing management, making it possible to predict the start of grazing a month in advance based on the current and predicted weather situation. This allows planning when and for how long the animals will be grazed [41].

3.2.4. Automatic Milking System (AMS) at Pasture

On farms where a pasture-based feeding system is used, automatic milking machines are often used for milking. The integration of automatic milking systems (AMS) into pasture-based cattle farming poses new challenges that are very different from those already known in systems where cows are grown in cowsheds. A particular challenge is the grazing of large cattle herds, where more than 50% of the total diet is pasture forage. When an automatic milking system (AMS) is used, animals have to travel considerable distances from the pasture to the milking point [171]. Information reported by Islam et al. [172] shows that cows milked by automatic milking machines had to travel distances exceeding 1.0 km on average, in cases where the farm size was more than 80 ha. Significant distances between the grazing area and the location of the automatic milking machine result in longer intervals between milkings and are associated with increased energy loss by the animals spent on constant movement [173,174]. In addition to the positive sides, frequent movement can also have negative effects on animal welfare. Travelling long distances increases cortisol levels (an indicator of stress) and can cause gait disturbances or lameness or cause mechanical injuries to the hoof [175].
Figure 2. Innovations applied to grasslands (a) Plate meter; (b) Drone. (Fot. M. Staniak).
Figure 2. Innovations applied to grasslands (a) Plate meter; (b) Drone. (Fot. M. Staniak).
Agriculture 13 00974 g002
Table 2. Innovations in grazing.
Table 2. Innovations in grazing.
ParameterMethods of Analysis
(Technology)
Use on Grasslands
(Application)
References
Yield.
Sward filling.
Clipping quadrats
(Measurements of the weight of a 1 m2 sward).
PEAQ sward stick (alfalfa).
QMS Sward stick
Plate meter (Rising plate meter,
Pasture Meters, Quality Plate Meters)
Ultrasonic distance
Sensors.
Spectral sensors in visible or near infrared light.
LiDAR and UAS (Unmanned aircraft system).
Mutli-View Stereopsis (MVS).
Assessing plant growth rates.
Estimating various plant traits such as height, biomass, and ground cover.
[176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184]
Sward composition.
Sward structure.
Identification of rare species in grasslands.
Defoliation of sward.
Combination of RGB sensors and hyperspectral sensors.
Laser scanning (LiDAR).
Assessing the nutritional value of sward.
Decision support for choosing the time of harvesting the sward
Identification of valuable natural habitats.
Conservation of grazing areas by adjusting the length of grazing time and changing paddocks.
[185,186,187]
Observation and control of animal behavior.Accelerometer.
Pressure sensor.
Acoustic sensor.
Detection of estrus and metabolic disorders based on rumination activity. Animal activity and behavior.
Selection preferences of plant species in the sward. Frequency of forage intake.
Calculation of forage intake per day.
Detecting metabolic and digestive disorders from rumination activity.
[188,189,190,191]
Movement patternsGPS logger.
Pedometer
Individual movement patterns of animals.
Movement activity per day.
Movement activity of a group of animals or herd.
Length of animal grazing and degree of use of pasture area.
Movement on pasturesAutomatic opening of gates on paddocksControl access of grazing animals to paddocks.
Preprogrammed times for opening of paddocks.
Remote control of gates
[169]
Grazing behaviorVirtual fencingDynamic control and adjustment of animal grazing.
Allocation of new grazing areas by shifting virtual boundaries in GPS.
Control of pasture boundaries by active neck collars on the animals.
Tracking of animals by GPS positioning system. SMS notification of animal escapes.
[160,192,193]
Decision support in sward use.
Sward management.
Data-based online tool.Assessment of sward growth rates.
Measurements of pasture productivity.
Analyses of fertilization and soil richness.
Increasing animal feed intake.
Assessment of sward quality in the pasture.
Improving milk yields and daily animal increases.
[194]

3.3. Innovations to Improve Feed Quality

3.3.1. Temporary Pastures

The grazing of animals can be carried out not only on permanent grassland but also on temporary pastures. They occupy the soil for one to five years and are made up of graminaceous plants or grasses mixed with legumes and other species. The most common species in this type of pasture include grasses: Agrostis spp., Festuca pratensis, Lolium perenne, and Dactylis glomerata. Recently, ryegrass varieties with high growth vigor and high sugar content have been used in temporary grassland swards. The legumes (Trifolium repens, Lotus spp., and Medicago sativa) are rich in protein and can help fix atmospheric nitrogen in soils [195,196].
Green fodder from such pastures, due to the high proportion of valuable grasses and legume species, has a higher protein and sugar content and better digestibility [197]. Temporary pastures are usually used for intensive grazing or grazing with a ration of supplementary roughage. Incorporating temporary pastures into the crop rotation cycle can help increase yields in the short term. It can also change the level and/or quality of soil organic matter and, in the medium term, affect the biological properties of the soil [198].

3.3.2. Multi-Species Pastures MSP

The improvement of degraded pastures is important for increasing pasture herbage yield and animal production. For pasture establishment and renovation, seed mixtures composed of different grass species or grasses with legumes are almost exclusively used, which guarantees the production of large quantities of good quality animal feed [199]. A new aspect in grassland forage production is the addition of herbaceous species naturally occurring in grassland communities to seed mixtures, to obtain multi-species pastures MSP or mixed-herb leys [200,201]. The addition of herbs improves the nutritional value of the pasture sward while maintaining a high and stable yield. Cichorium intybus (L.), Plantago lanceolata (L.) and Achillea millefolium (L.) increase the mineral content, resulting in a better-balanced ratio, improving the animal condition and growth. A well-balanced diet containing herbs in its composition, when used in calves, can influence the subsequent production performance of adult animals [202,203]. Herbs improve the palatability of feed, stimulate digestive processes, and increase the feed intake of animals. Palatability-enhancing species include Carum carvi (L.), Sanguisorba officinalis (L.), Daucus carota (L.), Pastinaca sativa (L.), Rumex acetosa (L.), and Salvia officinalis (L.). The herbs contain specific biologically active substances of tannins, saponins, terpenes, flavonoids, and alkaloids, which can have a positive impact on animal health prevention [204]. Essential oils found in herbs increase palatability and influence the feed intake of animals [18]. Terpenes, flavonoids, and alkaloids have positive effects on cattle gastrointestinal function and health by enhancing the immune system, and antioxidant and antiparasitic effects in the gut [127].
Lambs grazed on pastures containing C. intybus showed less infestation with internal parasites and the animals had higher growth rates than animals grazed on pastures without herbs [205]. Carum carvi (L.), Anethum graveolens (L.), and Artemisia vulgaris (L.) have similar effects. These herbs contain tannin compounds and bitters that reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal parasites and also have antidiarrheal effects [206]. A diarrheic effect has been observed when plants such as Pimpinella anisum (L.), Lotus uliginosus (Schkuhr), and Anthriscus cerefolium (L. Hoffm.) are ingested.
The correct percentage of herbs in the feed is important. Through a meta-regression, McCarthy et al. [207] investigated whether there is an optimum inclusion percentage of herb species in a grazing sward to increase milk yield. However, despite a positive relationship between herb percentage in the sward and milk yield, the association between herb percentage and milk yield was non-significant. The authors concluded that continued research investigating management strategies for multispecies swards is needed to determine optimum grazing strategies for multispecies swards in modern pasture-based dairy systems.
An optimally composed multispecies mixture containing herbs in its composition under stress conditions, e.g., drought, can provide a sward yield comparable to a mixture containing only grasses and legumes [208]. Increasing pasture biodiversity through the use of multi-species seed mixtures also has a positive impact on environmental aspects. The deep root system of Cichorium intybus (L.) contributes to the utilization of mineral nitrogen from deeper subsoil layers, which is not available in the root system of grasses [209].

4. Impact of Grazing on Animal Welfare

The efficient and rational use of pasture is linked to maintaining a balance between pasture productivity and the needs of the animals. The correct preparation of the pasture, in particular ensuring optimal grazing organization, is of key importance for the efficiency of production, and the condition and health of the animals in the herd.
Animal health and welfare are important issues, not only during the grazing season but throughout the year and for all groups of animals. Welfare includes aspects that are relatively easy to measure, such as health, as well as intangible aspects, such as emotions and feelings. In this respect, grazing has both advantages and disadvantages [210,211]. One important aspect of animal welfare is a natural behavior. This includes the need for food, water, and rest, as well as behavioral needs such as movement, social behavior, foraging, and play. Compared to cowshed housing, grazing provides many more opportunities for natural behavior. For cattle, pasture is a natural environment, allowing them to express normal behaviors. It can provide ample comfortable lying space, allowing cows to lie in stretched positions. A literature review by Arnott et al. [212] found that pasture access had benefits for dairy cow behavior, in terms of grazing, improved lying/resting times, and lower levels of aggression. The results of the observations made by Crump et al. [5] show that cattle at pasture had fewer lying bouts but longer lying times, indicating they were more comfortable and less restless. Lying behavior was also more synchronous outdoors, with most of the herd lying at the same time. These results indicate pasture provides a comfortable surface and reduces competition for lying space. Furthermore, cows in pasture walked farther, with potential benefits for their physical health and well-being [213].
Moreover, when given the choice between pasture and indoor housing, cows showed an overall preference for pasture, particularly at night [214]. Overall, grazing has a positive impact on animal health. Regarding health, cows on pasture-based systems had lower levels of lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis, uterine disease, and mortality compared with cows on continuously housed systems [212,215]. The relatively hard floor in the barn can cause wounds and sores on the knee and heel joints [216,217]. The coefficient of friction required for the free movement of dairy cattle is a minimum of 0.6 [218]. While the coefficient of friction of pasture is higher than 0.8 [219], and the coefficient of friction of floors in conventional barns is generally less than 0.6.
On the other hand, feeding pasture fodder causes large fluctuations in diet composition and makes frequent milking difficult. Both aspects negatively affect welfare, especially if the cows are highly productive. However, animals can be supplemented in the field, but maintaining grazing as the main source of food. There are regions in the world (e.g., subtropical) where it is possible to maintain high quality of cultivated pastures by using temperate or tropical, annual, or perennial species throughout the year. But, of course, there is a need for a good forage planning. In addition, extreme climatic events such as heat waves, extreme rainfall, and prolonged dry spells pose serious challenges to the pasture feeding system [220]. If pasture temperatures exceed 25 °C, this can cause heat stress in animals [221,222], which negatively affects milk yield [223,224]. In addition, outdoors there is an increased risk of infection with specific pathogens such as intestinal worms, lungworms, and liver fluke [225]. Malnutrition and delayed onset of estrous activity postpartum can be observed in cows on pasture. Contact over fences with cows from other farms increases the risk of transmission of infectious diseases such as infectious bovine rhinotracheitis and bovine viral diarrhea. However, in practice, these risks rarely lead to serious animal health problems. In general, it is easier to prevent grazing defects than to remedy welfare defects of permanently housed animals [210].
Monitoring animal welfare in large pastures can be time-consuming, especially if they are scattered over large areas of semi-natural pasture. Several technologies exist for monitoring animals with different devices that record physiological or behavioral parameters and trigger alarms when the information obtained deviates from the norm [190]. Automatic devices that allow continuous monitoring are ear tags with electronic identification and collars with GPS positioning units (they can assess animal movements and habitat choice and, to some extent, their health and welfare). However, knowledge of the potential impact of digital technology on the monitoring and management of livestock in a grazing system on animal welfare is limited, especially about drones and virtual fences.

5. Grazing in Response to Consumer Expectations about Product Quality

EU projections call for a reduction in meat consumption in EU countries by 2050. This would entail a reduction in adverse climatic and environmental impacts. In conjunction with the reduction in meat production and consumption, the consumption of dairy products is forecast to increase. This forecast takes into account the health-enhancing and nutritional qualities of milk and its products as a counter-position to meat, mainly red meat. Milk is a highly nutritious food and a valuable source of minerals, fats, amino acids, and vitamins [226]. However, it is estimated that worldwide only 10–15% of milk production comes from grazing systems [227].

5.1. Lipid Fraction

Milk contains about 70% saturated fatty acids and 30% unsaturated acids. Among the latter, a distinction is made between monounsaturated acids (MUFA), which account for about 83% of unsaturated acids, and polyunsaturated acids (PUFA), which account for about 17% [228,229]. Polyunsaturated fatty acids are among the bioactive components of milk. The content of polyunsaturated fatty acids in milk is about 2 g/L, of which linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) and α-linolenic acid (C18:3 n-3) are the most abundant. Important for human health is the ratio of n-6 to n-3 acids, which should be within 4:1 [230]. Of all the fatty acids found in cow’s milk fat, CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) has the greatest health-promoting properties. The importance of this acid is very high, as it exhibits antiatherosclerotic properties, prevents obesity, inhibits the development of certain cancers, and has immune effects.
The fat and fatty acid content of milk is variable and depends mainly on nutrition and less on genetic or physiological factors [231]. Fatty acids in milk can come from two sources: from feed or as products of digestive and metabolic processes in the rumen [229]. Long-chain fatty acids usually originate from the feed and enter the milk via the bloodstream. In contrast, short- and medium-chain fatty acids (C4 to C14 and some C16) are produced in the mammary gland by de novo synthesis from precursors such as acetate and butyrate [232,233]. The levels and types of fatty acids synthesized de novo vary, and this process is controlled by several key genes that are expressed in the mammary gland during milk production [234].
Studies comparing the effect of feeding pasture fodder and TMR on milk fat content have shown significantly higher percentages of health-promoting fatty acids in milk fat from cows fed pasture fodder [235,236]. Moreover, other studies confirm [237,238] that milk from cows fed pasture forage has a lower saturated fatty acid (SFA) content and a higher unsaturated content with a higher proportion of PUFA. Pasture feeding can lower, among other things, the ratio of n-6:n-3 acids in milk fat [239] and increase the content of several beneficial MUFAs and PUFAs (n-3) and their isomers. These include vaccenic acid (trans-11 C18:1), linolenic acid (C18:3), cis-9,trans-11 CLA, trans-11,cis-9-18:2 providing nutrient-rich milk with an improved thrombogenic index. As shown in a study by Kuczyńska [240], pasture feeding can result in an almost three-fold increase in the content of t-accenic, CLA, and α-linolenic acids in milk compared to feeding feed in the form of TMR.
The fatty acid content and structure of cows’ milk are influenced by the acids in the roughage. Green forage contains 10 to 12 times more α-linolenic acid C18: 3 than cereal grains. Preserved feeds, such as hay, will contain less of it. In addition, the fat contained in pasture greens has a very favorable ratio of n-6 to n-3 acids.
The increase in fatty acids is not only found in milk but also in dairy products such as cheeses [241,242,243,244,245,246] or butter [241,246,247] produced from milk from cows fed on pasture grass. This can be attributed to the high supply of these nutrients and FA substrates through the fresh pasture, and a high delivery of these FA to the mammary gland which enhances their final concentrations in milk [248,249].
As it turns out, the same beneficial effect on milk quality cannot be obtained by feeding grass brought into the barn. This is because a cow grazing on pasture takes up the forage much more slowly, which has a beneficial effect on rumen function. However, the partial grazing of cows on pasture makes it possible to cover approx. one-third of the animal’s daily forage requirements and has a similar effect on milk quality as 8-h grazing.
Pasture feeding influences the taste, texture, and color of the milk, which has a significant impact on the quality and taste of the products made from it. Milk obtained from cows fed on pasture sward has a creamy color (milk from conventionally reared cows is pure white) [250], and all products made from such milk (butter, yoghurt) have a slightly yellow tinge. Similarly, butter and cheeses made from pasture milk were more yellow in color due to higher concentrations of carotene in the milk, had reduced hardness and rancidity ratings at room temperature, and had higher preferences for various attributes such as creaminess, appearance, taste, and color [236,241,246,251,252].
Differences in the composition of the lipid fraction of milk, especially the FA profile in milk from cows fed pasture grass and cows fed TMR, affect milk fat processability (milk fat processability) and the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the final product.
Butter made from the milk of cows fed on pasture, due to a higher proportion of unsaturated fatty acids, has a softer texture and spreads better [253]. The concentration of unsaturated fatty acids and CLA in milk fat is negatively correlated with the concentration of SFA, and this relationship affects the texture (softness/hardness) of dairy products such as butter [246,247,254,255]. The ratio of palmitic acid (C16:0) to oleic acid (cis-9 C18:1) is referred to as the lubricity index. A higher amount of oleic acid promotes butter to be softer and easier to spread [246].
Butter made from pasture-fed milk is characterized by higher iodine number, acid number and peroxide and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) values. Despite the beneficial effect of pasture feeding on sensory attributes, the increased unsaturated FA content may increase the susceptibility of butterfat to undesirable quality changes such as lipolysis and oxidation [253]. However, the high levels of natural antioxidants, such as tocopherols and carotenoids, transferred to butterfat from forage may also be associated with increased oxidative stability [256].
Moreover, cheeses made from milk from cows fed on pasture grass were characterized by more favorable sensory attributes, such as texture (crispness and granularity), which the authors directly attributed to the variation in FA profiles in the milk [251].
The sensory properties of the milk are influenced not only by the pasture diet itself but also by the botanical composition of the pasture sward. Particular importance is attributed to the herbs and the aromatic oils, volatile fatty acids, and aldehydes they contain, which pass from the blood into the milk and give it its characteristic taste and smell. Comparing the composition of milk from cows grazing on different pastures, it was found that the most beneficial effect on the fatty acid content, both n-6 and n-3, was found to be the feeding of multi-species green forage containing different herbs in their composition.
The fatty acid profile of milk is also particularly favorably influenced by feeding red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Feed rations containing red clover increased the unsaturated fatty acid content of cow’s milk, especially α-linolenic acid [257]. Red clover owes its properties to its high content of polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that reduces the process of lipolysis in the rumen, thus increasing the efficiency of transfer of n-3 acids from feed to milk [258]. For this reason, silage made from a mixture of grass and red clover is recommended for winter feeding, when it is not possible to graze the animals on pasture.

5.2. Milk Proteins

Milk is an excellent source of high-quality protein. It contains about 30 different proteins, which occur as casein fractions, whey proteins and fat globule envelopes [226]. These proteins have a high biological value. They are a source of easily digestible essential amino acids. The whey proteins found in milk (the most valuable whey protein is lactoferrin) and the peptides formed from them have anti-inflammatory, bacteriostatic, antioxidant, opioid, anticancer, and antihypertensive properties, among others [259,260]. Specific fragments of milk proteins are thought to be important bioactive peptides with implications for reducing the risk of type two diabetes, obesity development, and high blood pressure [261,262]. Several milk components, including proteins, can interact with immune and neural networks affecting the rate of infection and mood [263]. These bioactive peptides are formed during fermentation by milk starter cultures, found in fermented dairy products and ripened cheeses [264,265]. The ingestion of milk proteins for some individuals might result in the occurrence of an altered or abnormal reaction called cow milk allergy [266].
The feeding regime has been shown to affect milk and protein yields. Both milk protein yield and milk protein content have been found to increase linearly as the proportion of fresh grass in the feeding ration increases [246]. The authors explained it by the linear increase in the propionic acid content in the rumen, which increased milk and protein synthesis, thus the higher protein yield and content. It was also found that milk from pasture-fed cows had a higher protein-to-fat ratio, higher whey protein content (especially β-lactoglobulin and lactoferrin) and better processability [267]. This demonstrates the better bioactive status of pasture-fed milk, especially since lactoferrin and its peptides, are biologically active milk compounds with positive effects on human health.
These differences in milk protein components affect the physicochemical properties of milk, including higher ethanol stability, increased thermal stability, and shorter solidification time of milk from pasture-fed cows [253]. In addition, it was found that cheese made from milk from pasture-fed cows was firmer, and had significantly higher solids content and lower water content compared to cheese made from milk from TMR-fed cows [253]. In addition, significantly higher protein and carbohydrate contents were found in cheese made from milk from pasture [253].

5.3. Vitamins and Minerals

Cow’s milk is a valuable source of antioxidants. These include vitamin A (retinol), vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), vitamin E (tocopherol), vitamin K2 (menaquinone), and ß-carotene (provitamin A) [268]. B vitamins are also found in smaller amounts in milk [269]. The pasture is a good source of various vitamins and antioxidants, which are transferred from the forage to the mammary gland and next to the milk. As a consequence, milk from pasture-fed cows has a higher content of ß -carotene, terpenes, lutein, vitamin A (retinol), E (tocopherol), and phytol [270]. In addition, the exposure of animals to the sun while outdoors promotes the synthesis of vitamin D.
Milk is a rich source of many macronutrients, mainly calcium, magnesium, and micronutrients such as selenium, iodine, zinc, copper, and iron. Minerals taken in with feed are not transformed but pass directly into the milk. Therefore, the mineral content of milk depends mainly on the content in feed and the extent to which mineral and vitamin supplements are used in the cows’ diet. Milk from cows on pasture had a higher content of calcium and phosphorus [271].

6. The Yield Assessment Systems and Grazing Techniques

In recent years, numerous studies have been conducted on the application of remote sensing in estimating and assessing sward growth dynamics in pastures, the availability of forage in particular areas of the pasture, and even the vegetation structure in the sward [272]. Active optical sensors calculate the normalized differential vegetation index (NDVI) in real-time by measuring the reflectance in near-infrared and red light and in this way, the yield and quality of the pasture sward are calculated [273]. Measurements can be taken manually with an NDVI sensor by taking random measurements on selected areas, or such devices can be mounted on tractors or vehicles, allowing more measurements to be taken over a larger area of pasture.
Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones or UAVs for short) are already widely used for monitoring field crops and permanent grasslands [274]. These devices are equipped with cameras that create spectral images of grasslands and are transmitted in real-time by radio waves creating images on the computer monitors of farmers monitoring the field crop and grassland area. Current research focuses on the validation of drone-derived images for estimating sward weight and quality in different grassland habitats through the use of algorithms and predictive modelling of yield and quality [182,275]. These results allow the generation of maps that inform the spatial variability and quality of the pasture sward. In addition, remote sensing-based monitoring using Sentinel and Lidar satellite systems provides some information on sward yield weight, forage quality, dynamics and rates of daily sward growth, and even potential estimates of pasture grazing animal performance in terms of milk production and meat gains [276]. Such monitoring of pastures and estimation of their yield potential even allows for a quick response and proactive adjustment of the number of grazing animals to the pasture area or the choice of when to swath the grassland [187]. Drones with on board cameras and image analyzers have great potential for use in pastoralism, monitoring the herd, and searching for lost animals [277].
The latest research topics are technologies for monitoring and controlling the movement of animals and their allocation to particular quarters according to their performance. Grazing management requires the farmer to precisely control where the animals are, as well as their behavior in the pasture, i.e., how long they graze and what physical activity they have performed. Technical innovations for animal monitoring are often limited to herd management in free-stall barns in the form of automated milking systems, pre- and post-milking animal weighing systems and electronic cow identification and monitoring systems when more feed is rewarded for cows with higher milk yields [278]. In free-stall barns, monitoring of animal location, behavior, feed intake frequency, frequency of approach to milking equipment, start and end of heat period, and current changes in health status are carried out using collars and transponders. The monitoring devices include accelerometers, thermometers, pressure gauges, microphones, and rumen activity sensors. These are attached to the animals’ bodies via ear tags, leg recorders, or placed in collars [188,190,191]. Any deviation from the normal behavior of individual animals can be quickly noticed by the keeper, who is informed via SMS messages on the phone. Fitting the animals with a GPS satellite positioning receiver collar enables detailed information to be obtained on the rate and manner of their movement and behavior in the herd [279,280].
Virtual fencing (VF), already described in more detail in the previous topic (see Section 3.2.1), is an innovation in digital systems for controlling animal feed allocation in pastures without physically setting up posts, wires, and other permanent fences [160]. Virtual fencing allows grazing animals to be directed to new plots at a specific time and kept away from plots that have just been used and which need to be given adequate time to regrow. The system does not adversely affect animal behavior, welfare, or performance (no negative impact on live weight gain or milk yield) [192,281]. Virtual fencing can also be an opportunity to introduce grazing animals (sheep) in previously unused areas, protected habitats where physical fencing is prohibited or with difficult access such as riparian meadow areas [192] and moorland in Scotland [160].
Despite the availability of many support tools, still, a small percentage of farmers choose to use them on their farms [282]. This is likely because innovative decision support systems and devices have not yet convinced farmers of the economic benefits and compliance with animal welfare practices. The cost of their use and maintenance on the farm can also have a large impact on the level of use of innovations [283].
Monitoring and collecting agronomic grassland information data using remote sensing generates large amounts of data that need to be presented in easy-to-understand and readable graphs, maps, and animations developed in simple software and apps available on phones. Such tools in the present and future will provide farmers with comprehensive knowledge and assistance for grazing management [284]. Farmers’ decision support systems have great potential to facilitate record-keeping and tracking of the agricultural production process for regulators and consumers of agricultural products [285].
All these available tools can help to better understand grazing, manage stocking density and animal load on the pasture and, most importantly, better understand the impact of the grazing process on the environment and climate change.

7. Conclusions

In most regions of the world, grazing plays an important role in milk production. Despite the importance of grazing, current trends in animal husbandry in Europe are causing a decline in the popularity of feeding cattle, especially dairy cows, on pasture. Grazing provides a range of ecosystem services, including regulating, storing, and purifying biogenic water, regulating plant nutrient cycles, increasing C sequestration, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock grazing is the most important factor shaping and stabilizing the biodiversity and botanical composition of plants in pastures. Important advantages of pasture-based feeding of dairy cows include the high-quality and health-promoting properties of milk and milk products, which translate into health benefits for consumers. The beneficial effects of pasture feeding on animal health, condition and welfare are also not insignificant. Available organizational innovations help to manage livestock grazing more effectively. By automating certain tasks and introducing new technologies, grazing efficiency, the quality of the products obtained and working conditions are improved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.W., W.Z. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, B.W., W.Z. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, B.W., W.Z. and M.S.; visualization, B.W., W.Z. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Haan, C.; Steinfeld, H.; Blackburn, H. Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance; European Commission Directorate-General for Development, Development Policy Sustainable Development and Natural Resources: Rome, Italy, 1997; p. 115. [Google Scholar]
  2. Finneran, E.; Crosson, P.; O’Kiely, P.; Shalloo, L.; Forristal, D.; Wallace, M. Stochastic simulation of the cost of home-produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wilkinson, J.M.; Lee, M.R.F.; Rivero, M.J.; Chamberlain, A.T. Some challenges and opportunities for grazing dairy cows on temperate pastures. Grass Forage Sci. 2020, 75, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Hennessy, D.; Isselstein, J. Grazing of dairy cows in Europe—An in-depth analysis based on the perception of grassland experts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Crump, A.; Jenkins, K.; Bethell, E.J.; Ferris, C.P.; Arnott, G. Pasture Access Affects Behavioral Indicators of Wellbeing in Dairy Cows. Animals 2019, 9, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kennedy, E.; O’Donovan, M.; Murphy, J.-P.; Delaby, L.; O’Mara, F. Effects of grass pasture and concentrate-based feeding systems for spring-calving dairy cows in early spring on performance during lactation. Grass Forage Sci. 2005, 60, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huyghe, C.; De Vliegher, A.; van Gils, B.; Peeters, A. Grasslands and Herbivore Production in Europe and Effects of Common Policies; Éditions Quae: Versailles, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hurtado-Uria, C.; Hennessy, D.; Shalloo, L.; O’Connor, D.; Delaby, L. Relationships between meteorological data and grass growth over time in the south of Ireland. Ir. Geogr. 2013, 46, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ruelle, E.; Delaby, L.; Hennessy, D. Development of the Moorepark St Gilles grass growth model (MoSt GG model): A predictive model for grass growth for pasture based systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 99, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wims, C.M.; Deighton, M.H.; Lewis, E.; O’Loughlin, B.; Delaby, L.; Boland, T.M.; O’Donovan, M. Effect of pregrazing herbage mass on methane production, dry matter intake, and milk production of grazing dairy cows during the mid-season period. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4976–4985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ganche, E.; Delaby, L.; O’Donovan, M.; Boland, T.M.; Galvin, N.; Kennedy, E. Post-grazing sward height imposed during the first 10 weeks of lactation: Influence on early and total lactation dairy cow production, and spring and annual sward characteristics. Livest. Sci. 2013, 157, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. McDonald, P.; Edwards, R.A.; Greenhalgh, J.F.D.; Morgan, C.A. Grass and Forage Crops. In Animal Nutrition, 5th ed.; Longman Group Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Chapter 18. [Google Scholar]
  13. Egan, M.; Galvin, N.; Hennessy, D. Incorporating white clover (Trifolium repens L.) into perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) swards receiving varying levels of nitrogen fertiliser: Effects on milk and herbage production. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3412–3427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Riberio Filho, H.M.N.; Delagarde, R.; Peyraud, J.L. Inclusion of white clover in strip-grazed perennial ryegrass swards: Herbage intake and milk yield of dairy cows at different ages of sward regrowth. Anim. Sci. 2003, 77, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peyraud, J.L.; Delagarde, R. Managing variations in dairy cow nutrient supply under grazing. Animal 2013, 7, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dias, K.; Garcia, S.; Islam, M.R.; Clark, C. Milk yield, milk composition, and the nutritive value of feed accessed varies with the milking order for pasture-based dairy cattle. Animals 2019, 9, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. MacAdam, J.W.; Villalba, J.J. Beneficial effects of temperate forage legumes that contain condensed tannins. Agriculture 2015, 5, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Distel, R.A.; Arroquy, J.I.; Lagrange, S.; Villalba, J.J. Designing diverse agricultural pastures for improving ruminant production systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 596869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Niderkorn, V.; Jayanegara, A. Opportunities offered by plant bioactive compounds to improve silage quality, animal health and product quality for sustainable ruminant production: A review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaur, A.P.; Bhardwaj, S.; Dhanjal, D.S.; Nepovimova, E.; Cruz-Martins, N.; Kuca, K.; Chopra, C.; Singh, R.; Kumar, H.; Sen, F.; et al. Plant prebiotics and their role in the amelioration of diseases. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Joubran, A.M.; Pierce, K.M.; Garvey, N.; Shalloo, L.; O’Callaghan, T.F. Invited review: A 2020 perspective on pasture-based dairy systems and products. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 7364–7382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Oesterheld, M. Effects of grazing intensity on plant richness and diversity: A meta-analysis. Oikos 2018, 127, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tälle, M.; Deák, B.; Poschlod, P.; Valkó, O.; Westerberg, L.; Milberg, P. Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 222, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Perotti, E.; Probo, M.; Pittarello, M.; Lonati, M.; Lombardi, G. A 5-year rotational grazing changes the botanical composition of sub-alpine and alpine grasslands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2018, 21, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bailey, D.W.; Dumont, B.; Wallisdevries, M.F. Utilization of heterogeneous grasslands by domestic herbivores: Theory to management. Ann. Zootech. 1998, 47, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kramer, K.; Groen, T.A.; van Wieren, S.E. The interacting effects of ungulates and fire on forest dynamics: An analysis using the model FORSPACE. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 181, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sternberg, M.; Gutman, M.; Perevolotsky, A.; Ungar, E.D.; Kigel, J. Vegetation response to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community: A functional group approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adler, P.; Raff, D.; Lauenroth, W. The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation. Oecologia 2001, 128, 465–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Perevolotsky, V.I. Integrating landscape ecology in the conservation of Mediterranean ecosystems: The Israeli experience. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2005, 53, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rook, J.; Tallowin, J.R.B. Grazing and pasture management for biodiversity benefit. Anim. Res. 2003, 52, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Clergue, B.; Amiaud, B.; Pervanchon, F.; Lasserre-Joulin, F.; Plantureux, S. Biodiversity: Function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 25, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hodapp, D.; Borer, E.T.; Harpole, W.S.; Lind, E.M.; Seabloom, E.W.; Adler, P.B.; Alberti, J.; Arnillas, C.A.; Bakker, J.D.; Biederman, L.; et al. Spatial heterogeneity in species composition constrains plant community responses to herbivory and fertilisation. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1364–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Milchunas, G.; Lauenroth, W.K. Quantitative Effects of Grazing on Vegetation and Soils Over a Global Range of Environments. Ecol. Monogr. 1993, 63, 327–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Borer, T.; Seabloom, E.W.; Gruner, D.S.; Harpole, W.S.; Hillebrand, H.; Lind, E.M.; Adler, P.B.; Alberti, J.; Anderson, T.M.; Bakker, J.D.; et al. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 2014, 508, 517–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Havstad, K.M.; Peters, D.P.C.; Skaggs, R.; Brown, J.; Bestelmeyer, B.; Fredrickson, E.; Herrick, J.; Wright, J. Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2002, 16, 90-1–90-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morgan, J.A.; Parton, W.; Derner, J.D.; Gilmanov, T.G.; Smith, D.P. Importance of early season conditions and grazing on carbon dioxide fluxes in Colorado shortgrass steppe. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 69, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Van Vuuren, A.M.; Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A. Grazing systems and feed supplementation. In Fresh Herbage for Dairy Cattle, the Key to a Sustainable Food Chain; Elgersma, A., Dijkstra, J., Tamminga, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 18, pp. 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chapman, D.F.; Lee, J.M.; Waghorn, G.C. Interaction between plant physiology and pasture feeding value: A review. Crop Pasture Sci. 2014, 65, 721–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Vellinga, T.V.; Johansen, A.; Kennedy, E. To graze or not to graze, that’s the question. In Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Sweden, 9–12 June 2008; pp. 706–716. Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/52697 (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  41. Van den Pol, A.; de Vliegher, A.; Hennessy, D.; Isselstein, J.; Peyraud, J.L. The Future of Grazing. In Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the EGF Working Group “Grazing”; Livestock Research Report 906; Wageningen UR (University & Research Centre) Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015; Available online: https://www.europeangrassland.org/fileadmin/documents/Working_Groups/Grazing/906_The_future_of_grazing_-_Van_den_Pol-van_Dasselaar_et_al.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  42. Knaus, W. Perspectives on pasture versus indoor feeding of dairy cows. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Läpple, D.; Sirr, G. Dairy intensification and quota abolition: A comparative study of production in Ireland and The Netherlands. EuroChoices 2019, 18, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schingoethe, D.J. A 100-year review: Total mixed ration feeding of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10143–10150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jerrentrup, J.S.; Wrage-Mönnig, N.; Röver, K.U.; Isselstein, J. Grazing intensity affects insect diversity via sward structure and heterogeneity in a long-term experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 968–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. McCarthy, B.; Delaby, L.; Pierce, K.M.; McCarthy, J.; Fleming, C.; Brennan, A.; Horan, B. The multi-year cumulative effects of alternative stocking rate and grazing management practices on pasture productivity and utilization efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 3784–3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Tallowin, J.R.B.; Rook, A.J.; Rutter, S.M. Impact of grazing management on biodiversity of grasslands. Anim. Sci. 2005, 81, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Langworthy, A.D.; Verdon, M.; Freeman, M.J.; Corkrey, R.; Hills, J.L.; Rawnsley, R.P. Virtual fencing technology to intensively graze lactating dairy cattle. I: Technology efficacy and pasture utilization. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 7071–7083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bai, Y.; Cotrufo, M.F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 2022, 377, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Clark, M.A.; Domingo, N.G.G.; Colgan, K.; Thakrar, S.K.; Tilman, D.; Lynch, J.; Azevedo, I.L.; Hill, J.D. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 2020, 370, 705–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  52. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Smith, P.; Balmford, A. Climate change: ‘no get out of jail free card’. Vet. Rec. 2020, 186, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. White, R.; Murray, S.; Rohweder, M. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Grassland Ecosystems; World Resources Institute (WRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2000; Available online: http://pdf.wri.org/page_grasslands.pdf (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  55. Scurlock, J.M.O.; Hall, D.O. The global carbon sink: A grassland perspective. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1998, 4, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Burney, J.A.; Davis, S.J.; Lobell, D.B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 12052–12057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Reeder, J.D.; Schuman, G.E. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wu, H.; Guo, Z.; Peng, C. Land use induced changes of organic carbon storage in soils of China. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aryal, D.R. Grazing intensity in grassland ecosystems: Implications for carbon storage and functional properties. CABI Rev. 2022, 13, 2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Apfelbum, S.L.; Thompson, R.; Wang, F.; Mosier, S.; Teague, R.; Byck, P. Vegetation, water infiltration, and soil carbon response to Adaptive Multi-Paddock and Conventional grazing and Southeastern USA ranches. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Savian, J.V.; Schons, R.M.T.; de Souza Filho, W.; Zubieta, A.S.; Kindlein, L.; Bindelle, J.; Bayer, C.; Bremm, C.; Carvalho, P.C.F. ‘Rotatinuous’ stocking as a climate-smart grazing management strategy for sheep production. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Funakawa, S.; Fujii, K.; Kadono, A.; Watanabe, T.; Kosaki, T. Could Soil Acidity Enhance Sequestration of Organic Carbon in Soils? In Soil Carbon. Progress in Soil Science; Hartemink, A., McSweeney, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. FAO STAT Statistical Database 2013; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015.
  64. Ramankutty, N.; Evan, A.T.; Monfreda, C.; Foley, J.A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2008, 22, GB1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guo, L.B.; Gifford, R.M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bai, Z.G.; Dent, D.L.; Olsson, L.; Shcaepman, M.E. Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement. 1. Identification by Remote Sensing; Report 2008/01; ISRIC, World Soil Information: Waginengen, The Netherlands, 2008; Available online: https://www.isric.org/sites/default/files/isric_report_2008_01.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
  67. Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.; Janzen, H.; Kumar, P.; Smith, J. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B 2008, 363, 789–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K. Grassland management activity data: Current sources and future needs. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cardoso, A.S.; Barbero, R.P.; Romanzini, E.P.; Teobaldo, R.W.; Ongaratto, F.; Fernandes, M.H.M.R.; Ruggieri, A.C.; Reis, R.A. Intensification: A key strategy to achieve great animal and environmental beef cattle production sustainability in Brachiaria grasslands. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rasche, L.; Schneider, U.A.; Steinhauser, J. A stakeholders’ pathway towards a future land use and food system in Germany. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Teague, W.R.; Apfelbaum, S.; Lai, R.; Kneotes, U.P.; Rowntree, J.; Davies, C.A.; Conser, R.; Rasmussen, M.; Hatfield, J.; Wang, T.; et al. The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2016, 71, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Scholtz, M.M.; Jordaan, F.J.; Thuli Chabalala, N.; Pyoos, G.M.; Joel Mamabolo, M.; Neser, F.W. A balanced perspective on the contribution of extensive ruminant production to greenhouse gas emissions in southern Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2023, 40, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Podkówka, Z.; Podkówka, W. Emisja gazów cieplarnianych przez krowy. Przegląd Hod. 2011, 3, 1–4. Available online: http://ptz.icm.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PH_3_2011_Podkowka.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  74. Berça, A.S.; Romanzini, E.P.; da Silva Cardoso, A.; Ferreira, L.E.; D’Aurea, A.P.; Fernandes, L.B.; Reis, R.A. Advances in Pasture Management and Animal Nutrition to Optimize Beef Cattle Production in Grazing Systems. In Animal Feed Science and Nutrition-Production, Health and Environment; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Króliczewska, B.; Pecka-Kiełb, E.; Bujok, J. Strategies Used to Reduce Methane Emissions from Ruminants: Controversies and Issues. Agriculture 2023, 13, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Van de Ven, G.W.J.; Van Keulen, H. A mathematical approach to comparing environmental and economic goals in dairy farming: Identifying strategic development options. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Williams, P.H.; Haynes, R.J. Comparison of initial wetting pattern, nutrient concentrations in soil solution and the fate of 15 N-labelled urine in sheep and cattle urine patch areas of pasture soil. Plant Soil 1994, 162, 49–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Haynes, R.J.; Williams, P.H. Nutrient cycling and soil fertility in the grazed pasture ecosystem. Adv. Agron. 1993, 49, 119–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Di, H.J.; Cameron, K.C. Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: Sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2002, 64, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Weier, K.L. Nitrogen use and losses in agriculture in subtropical Australia. Fertil. Res. 1994, 39, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Van Duinkerken, G.; André, G.; Smits, M.C.J.; Monteny, G.J.; Šebek, L.B.J. Effect of rumen-degradable protein balance and forage type on bulk milk urea concentration and emission of ammonia from dairy cow houses. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 1099–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Van Beusichem, M.L.; Oenema, O. Effects of nitrogen input and grazing on methane uptake by extensively and intensively managed grasslands. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1999, 29, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jiao, H.P.; Dale, A.J.; Carson, A.F.; Murray, S.; Gordon, A.W.; Ferris, C.P. Effect of concentrate feed level on methane emissions from grazing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7043–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Olff, H.; Ritchie, M.E. Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Piek, H. Experiences with grazing on nature reserves in the Netherlands. In Grazing and Conservation Management; Conservation Biology Series; Wallis DeVries, M.F., Bakker, J.P., van Wieren, S.E., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; Volume 11, pp. 253–272. [Google Scholar]
  86. Metera, E.; Sakowski, T.; Słoniewski, K.; Romanowicz, B. Grazing as a tool to maintain biodiversity of grassland—A review. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2010, 28, 315–334. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ausden, M. Habitat Management for Conservation; A Handbook of Techniques; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 411. [Google Scholar]
  88. Peco, B.; Sanchez, A.M.; Azcarate, F.A. Abandonment in grazing systems: Consequences for vegetation and soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Benstead, P.; Drake, M.; José, P.; Mountford, J.O.; Newbold, C.; Treweek, J. The Wet Grassland Guide—Managing Floodplain and Coastal Wet Grassland for Wildlife; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, UT, USA, 1997; p. 254. [Google Scholar]
  90. Jones, A.T.; Hayes, M.J. Increasing Floristic Diversity in Grassland: The Effects of Management Regime and Provenance on Species Introduction. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 87, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Smith, R.S.; Shiel, R.S.; Millward, D.; Corkhill, P. The interactive effects of management on the productivity and plant community structure of an upland meadow: An 8-year field trial. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 1029–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Van Braeckel, A.; Bokdam, J. Habitat selection of cattle and horses in the Lower Basin of the Biebrza National Park. In Grazing as a Conservation Management Tool in Peatland, Report of a Workshop Held 22–26 April in Goniądz, Poland; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 60–63. [Google Scholar]
  93. Todd, P.A.; Phillips, J.D.P.; Putwain, P.D.; Marrs, R.H. Control of Molinia caerulea on moorland. Grass Forage Sci. 2000, 55, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Taylor, K.; Rowland, A.P.; Jones, H.E. Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench. J. Ecol. 2001, 89, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kulik, M. Changes of biodiversity and species composition of Molinia meadow depending on use method. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 23, 773–782. [Google Scholar]
  96. Jermaczek-Sitak, M. Charakter i stan zachowania łąk selernicowych Cnidion w zachodniej Polsce a warunki wodne. Przegląd Przyr. XXII 2011, 3, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  97. Šarapatka, B.; Urban, J. Rolnictwo Ekologiczne w Praktyce; Wyd. Instytut Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy: Falenty, Poland, 2012; p. 470. [Google Scholar]
  98. Staniak, M.; Feledyn-Szewczyk, B. Bioróżnorodność Obszarów Wiejskich—Znaczenie i Zagrożenia; Wyd. Fundacja Ziemia i Ludzie: Warsaw, Poland, 2016; p. 112. [Google Scholar]
  99. Bullock, J.M. Plant Competition and Population Dynamics. In The Ecology and Management of Grazing Systems; Hodgson, J., Illius, A.W., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 1996; pp. 69–100. [Google Scholar]
  100. Wasilewski, Z. Wypas Jako Instrument Ochrony Różnorodności Biologicznej; Biblioteczka Krajowego Programu Rolnośrodowiskowego: Warsaw, Poland, 2003; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
  101. Kucharska, A.; Kuźnicka, E. Importance of grazing sheep for natural, cultural and productive heritage protection in the Tatra Mountains on an example of the Tatra National Park. Post. Nauk Rol. 2005, 5, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wróbel, I. Dynamika roślinności łąkowej w warunkach stosowania ciągłych zabiegów ochronnych w Pienińskim Parku Narodowym. Stud. Nat. 2006, 54, 241–264. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sosin-Bzducha, E.; Chełmińska, A.; Sikora, J. Wypas owiec jako element czynnej ochrony Krajobrazu Wyżyny Krakowsko-Częstochowskiej. Wiadomości Zootech. 2012, 50, 85–88. [Google Scholar]
  104. Schatz, T.; Ffloukes, D.; Shotton, P.; Hearnden, M. Effect of high intensity rotational grazing on the growth of cattle grazing buffalo pasture in the northern territory and on carbon sequestration. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 1814–1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Wells, H.B.M.; Crego, R.D.; Ekadeli, J.; Namoni, M.; Kimuyo, D.M.; Odadi, W.O.; Porenskym, L.M.; Dougill, A.J.; Stringer, L.C.; Young, T.P. Less is More: Lowering cattle stocking rates enhances wild herbivore habitual use and cattle foraging efficiency. Front. Ecol. 2022, 11, 825689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. McDonald, S.E.; Reid, N.; Smith, R.; Waters, C.M.; Hunter, J.; Rader, R. Rotational grazing management achieves similar plant diversity outcome in areas managed for conservation in a semi-arid rangeland. Rangel. J. 2019, 41, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kitczak, T.; Czyż, H.; Gos, A. Skład florystyczny, plon i skład chemiczny runi pastwiska i łąki przemiennie użytkowanej. Zesz. Nauk. AR w Krakowie 2000, 368, 137–143. Available online: https://www.itp.edu.pl/old/wydawnictwo/woda/zeszyt_62_2018/Kitczak%20Jankowski.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  108. Davies, A.; Morgan, C.T.; Fothergill, M. Effects of extensification on sheep production from an upland permanent pasture. In Proceedings of the 15th General Meeting of the EGF, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 6–9 June 1994; pp. 290–301. Available online: https://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-article-16a9258b-10ee-4368-a7a9-224af577be9e (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  109. Neuteboom, J.H.; Mametje, L.T.; Lantiga, E.A.; Wind, K. Cattle weigh changes and botanical composition of am unfertilized grass sward under continuous grazing. In Proceedings of the 15th General Meeting of the EGF, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 6–9 June 1994; pp. 320–323. Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/216064 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  110. Kasperczyk, M.; Kacorzyk, P. Wartość użytkowa runi pastwiskowej w zależności od częstotliwości spasania i poziomu nawożenia. Zesz. Prob. Post. Nauk Roln. 1996, 442, 205–214. Available online: https://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-article-fdcc779a-5a9c-42af-90dc-88964fddbb25?q=bwmeta1.element.agro-volume-fa500261-f14b-4670-9d6a-b319fb308895;20&qt=CHILDREN-STATELESS (accessed on 1 April 2023).
  111. Harris, W. Effects of quality and pattern of herbage removal on botanical composition of temperate pasture. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 1998, 3, 322–324. [Google Scholar]
  112. Hopkins, A.; Hrabe, F. Organic grassland farming and nature conservation. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2001, 6, 91–106. [Google Scholar]
  113. Grzegorczyk, S. Użytkowanie ekosystemów trawiastych a kształtowanie środowiska. Zesz. Prob. Post. Nauk Roln. 2016, 586, 19–32. Available online: http://agro.icm.edu.pl/agro/element/bwmeta1.element.agro-ea177dff-f51d-43a8-8d25-e0648cf5aca5216064 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  114. Schönbach, P.; Wan, H.; Gierus, M.; Bai, Y.; Müller, K.; Lin, L.; Susenbeth, A.; Taube, F. Grassland responses to grazing: Effects of grazing intensity and management system in an Inner Mongolian steppe ecosystem. Plant Soil 2011, 340, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Tokarska-Guzik, B.; Dajdok, Z.; Zając, M.; Zając, A.; Urbisz, A.; Danielewicz, W.; Hołdyński, C. Rośliny Obcego Pochodzenia w Polsce ze Szczególnym Uwzględnieniem Gatunków Inwazyjnych; Wyd. Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; p. 196. [Google Scholar]
  116. Leavier, J.D. Milk production from grazed temperate grassland. J. Dairy Res. 1985, 52, 313–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Roche, J.R.; Berry, D.P.; Bryant, A.M.; Burke, C.R.; Butler, S.T.; Dillon, P.G.; Donaghy, D.J.; Horan, B.; Macdonald, K.A.; Macmillan, K.L. A 100-year review: A century of change in temperate grazing dairy systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 10189–10233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Allen, V.G.; Batello, C.; Berretta, E.J.; Hodgson, J.; Kothmann, M.; Li, X.; McIvor, J.; Milne, J.; Morris, C.; Peeters, A.; et al. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci. 2011, 66, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Dorrough, J.; Yen, A.; Turner, V.; Clark, S.G.; Crosthwaite, J.; Hirth, J.R. Livestock grazing management and biodiversity conservation in Australian temperate grassy landscapes. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 55, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Briske, D.D.; Sayre, N.F.; Huntsinger, L.; Fernández-Giménez, M.; Budd, B.; Derner, J.D. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: Integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 64, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Teague, W.R.; Dowhower, S.L.; Baker, S.A.; Haile, N.; DeLaune, P.B.; Conover, D.M. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sanderman, J.; Reseigh, J.; Wurst, M.; Young, M.A.; Austin, J. Impacts of rotational grazing on soil carbon in native grass-based pastures in Southern Australia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kahn, L.P.; Earl, J.M.; Nicholls, M. Herbage mass thresholds rather than plant phenology are a more useful cue for grazing management decisions in the mid-north region of South Australia. Rangel. J. 2010, 32, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sanjari, G.; Yu, B.; Ghadiri, H.; Ciesiolka, C.A.; Rose, C.W. Effects of time-controlled grazing on runoff and sediment loss. Soil Res. 2009, 47, 796–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bai, G.; Bao, Y.; Du, G.; Qi, Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with vegetation and soil parameters under rest grazing management in a desert steppe ecosystem. Mycorrhiza 2013, 23, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Cotrufo, M.F.; Wallenstein, M.D.; Boot, C.M.; Denef, K.; Paul, E. The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 988–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Jordon, M.W.; Willis, K.J.; Bürkner, P.-C.; Petrokofsky, G. Rotational grazing and multispecies herbal leys increase productivity in temperate pastoral systems—A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 337, 108075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rui, Y.; Jackson, R.D.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Ruak, M.D. Persistent soil carbon enhanced in mollisols by well-managed grassland but not annual grain or dairy forage cropping systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2118931119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mosier, S.; Apfelbaum, S.; Byck, P.; Cotrufo, F.M.F. Adaptive multi paddock grazing enhances nitrogen stock and stabilization throughout southeastern grazing lands. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. deOtalora, X.; Epelde, L.; Arranz, J.; Garbisu, C.; Ruiz, R.; Mandaluniz, N. Regenerative rotational grazing management of dairy sheep increases springtime grass production and topsoil carbon storage. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 125, 107484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Rogalski, M.; Kardyńska, S.; Wieczorek, A.; Kryszak, J.; Biniaś, J. Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie składu botanicznego i wysokości spasanej runi a strategia spożywania zielonki pastwiskowej przez bydło. Zesz. Nauk. AR Krakowie 2000, 73, 263–268. [Google Scholar]
  132. Wagner, M.; Waterton, C.; Norton, L.R. Mob grazing: A Nature-based solution for British farms producing pasture-fed livestock. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chen, W.; Huang, D.; Liu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Badgery, W.B.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y. Improved grazing management may increase soil carbon sequestration in temperate steppe. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 10892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Pei, S.; Fu, H.; Wan, C. Changes in soil properties and vegetation following exclosure and grazing in degraded Alxa desert steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. McSherry, M.E.; Ritchie, M.E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: A global review. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1347–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Carter, J.; Jones, A.; O’Brien, M.; Ratner, J.; Wuerthner, G. Holistic management: Misinformation on the science of grazed ecosystems. Intern. J. Biodiver. 2014, 2014, 163431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Teague, R.; Provenza, F.; Kreuter, U.; Steffens, T.; Barnes, M. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 699–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, T.; Teague, W.R.; Park, S.C.; Bevers, S. Evaluation of long-term economic and ecological consequences of continuous and multi-paddock grazing. Agric. Sys. 2018, 165, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Teague, R.; Barnes, M. Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2017, 34, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Hillenbrand, M.; Thompson, R.; Wang, F.; Apfelbaum, S.; Teague, R. Impacts of holistic planned grazing with bison compared to continuous grazing with cattle in South Dakota shortgrass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 279, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R. Simulated water quality effects of alternate grazing management practices at the ranch and watershed scales. Ecol. Modell. 2017, 360, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R.; Dowhower, S.L. Simulating hydrologic responses to alternate grazing management practices at the ranch and watershed scales. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 102–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Park, J.Y.; Ale, S.; Teague, W.R.; Jeong, J. Evaluating the ranch and watershed scale impacts of using traditional and adaptive multi-paddock grazing on runoff, sediment and nutrient losses in North Texas, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 240, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kim, J.; Ale, S.; Kreuter, U.P.; Teague, W.R.; DelGrosso, S.J.; Dowhower, S.L. Evaluating the impacts of alternative grazing management practices on soil carbon sequestration and soil health indicators. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 342, 108234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Benthien, O.; Braun, M.; Rieman, J.C.; Stolter, C. Long-term effect of sheep and goat grazing on plant diversity in a semi dry natural grassland habitat. Hellyon 2018, 4, e00556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Teague, R.; Kreuter, U. Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. Front. Sustain. Food Sci. 2020, 157, 534187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Fraser, M.D.; Garcia, R.R. Mixed species grazing management to improve sustainability and biodiversity. OIE 2018, 37, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Barry, S.; Huntsinger, L. Rangeland sharing, livestock grazing’s role in conservation of imperiled species. Animals 2021, 13, 4466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Evans, D.M.; Redpath, S.M.; Evans, S.A.; Elston, D.A.; Gardner, C.J.; Dennis, P.; Pakeman, R.J. Low intensity mixed livestock grazing improves breeding abundance of common insectivorous passerine. Biol. Lett. 2016, 2, 636–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lee-Mader, E.; Stine, A.; Fowler, J.; Hopwood, J.; Vaughan, M. Cover Cropping for Pollinators and Beneficial Insects, SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research Education USDA). 2014. Available online: Save.org/wp-contact/uploads/cover-cropping-forpollinators-and-beneficial-insects.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2022).
  151. Huertas, S.M.; Bobadilla, P.E.; Alcántara, I.; Akkermans, E.; van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Husak, A.L.; Grado, S.C. Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. South J. Appl. For. 2002, 26, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Sarabia, L.; Solorio, F.J.; Ramírez, L.; Ayala, A.; Aguilar, C.; Ku, J.; Almeida, C.; Cassador, R.; Alves, B.J.; Boddey, R.M. Improving the nitrogen cycling in livestock systems through silvopastoral systems. In Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production; Meena, R., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Skonieski, F.R.; Souza, E.R.D.; Gregolin, L.C.B.; Fluck, A.C.; Costa, O.A.D.; Destri, J.; Neto, A.P. Physiological response to heat stress and ingestive behavior of lactating Jersey cows in silvopasture and conventional pasture grazing systems in a Brazilian subtropical climate zone. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Alyssa, A.C. Lamb Growth and Pasture Production in Agrivoltaic Production System. Bachelor’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA, 2020. Available online: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/honors_college_theses/v405sh87r (accessed on 3 November 2022).
  156. Kochencloerfer, N.; Thonney, M.L. Grazing Sheep on Solar Sites in New York, Opportunities and Challenges; Cornell College of Agriculture. Sustainability Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Solar-Site-Sheep-Grazing-in-NY.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2023).
  157. Mancuso, D.; Castagnolo, G.; Porto, S.M.C. Cow Behavioural Activities in Extensive Farms: Challenges of Adopting Automatic Monitoring Systems. Sensors 2023, 23, 3828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lee, C. An Apparatus and Method for the Virtual Fencing of an Animal. International Patent Application No. PCT/AUT2005/001056, 26 January 2006. [Google Scholar]
  159. Lee, C.; Reed, M.T.; Wark, T.; Crossman, C.; Valencia, P. Control Device, and Method, for Controlling the Location of an Animal. International Patent Application No. PCT/AU2009/000943, 28 January 2010. [Google Scholar]
  160. Umstatter, C. The evolution of virtual fences: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lee, C.; Henshall, J.M.; Wark, T.J.; Crossman, C.C.; Reed, M.T.; Brewer, H.G.; O’Grady, J.; Fisher, A.D. Associative learning by cattle to enable effective and ethical virtual fences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 119, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Campbell, D.L.M.; Lea, J.M.; Haynes, S.J.; Farrer, W.J.; Leigh-Lancaster, C.J.; Lee, C. Virtual fencing of cattle using an automated collar in a feed attractant trial. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018, 200, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Bishop-Hurley, G.J.; Swain, D.L.; Anderson, D.M.; Sikka, P.; Crossman, C.; Corke, P. Virtual fencing applications: Implementing and testing an automated cattle control system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2007, 56, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Jouven, M.; Leroy, H.; Ickowicz, A.; Lapeyronie, P. Can virtual fences be used to control grazing sheep? Rangel. J. 2012, 34, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Brunberg, E.I.; Bøe, K.E.; Sørheim, K.M. Testing a new virtual fencing system on sheep. Acta Agric. Scand. Anim. Sci. 2015, 65, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Brunberg, E.I.; Bergslid, I.K.; Bøe, K.E.; Sørheim, K.M. The ability of ewes with lambs to learn a virtual fencing system. Animal 2017, 11, 2045–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Marini, D.; Meuleman, D.M.; Belson, S.; Rodenburg, B.T.; Llewellyn, R.; Lee, C. Developing an ethically acceptable virtual fencing system for sheep. Animals 2018, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Van Erp-van der Kooij, E.; Rutter, S.M. Using precision farming to improve animal welfare. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 2020, 15, 1–10. Available online: http://www.cabi.org/cabreviews (accessed on 10 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  169. Caja, G.; Castro-Costa, A.; Salama, A.A.; Oliver, J.; Baratta, M.; Ferrer, C.; Knight, C.H. Sensing solutions for improving the performance, health and wellbeing of small ruminants. J. Dairy Res. 2020, 87, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Klootwijk, C.W.; Holshof, G.; de Boer, I.J.M.; Van den Pol-Van Dasselaar, A.; Engel, B.; Van Middelaar, C.E. Correcting fresh grass allowance for rejected patches due to excreta in intensive grazing systems for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 10451–10459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Garcia, S.C.; Fulkerson, W.J. Opportunities for future Australian dairy systems—A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2005, 45, 1041–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Islam, M.R.; Garcia, S.C.; Clark, C.E.F.; Kerrisk, K.L. System fitness of grazeable forages for large herds in automatic milking system. In Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress, Sydney, Australia, 15–19 September 2013; pp. 1717–1718. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  173. Lyons, N.A.; Kerrisk, K.L.; Garcia, S.C. Comparison of 2 systems of pasture allocation on milking intervals and total daily milk yield of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 4494–4504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Lyons, L.; Kerrisk, K.L.; Garcia, S.C. Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking system: A review. Livest. Sci. 2014, 159, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Coulon, J.B.; Pradel, P.; Cochard, T.; Poutrel, B. Effect of extreme walking conditions for dairy cows on milk yield, chemical composition, and somatic cell count. J. Dairy Sci. 1998, 81, 994–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Sanderson, M.A.; Rotz, C.A.; Fultz, S.W.; Rayburn, E.B. Estimating forage mass with a commercial capacitance meter, rising plate meter, and pasture ruler. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1281–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Murphy, D.J.; O’Brien, B.; Hennessy, D.; Hurley, M.; Murphy, M.D. Evaluation of the precision of the rising plate meter for measuring compressed sward height on heterogeneous grassland swards. Precis. Agric. 2021, 22, 922–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. McSweeney, D.; Coughlan, N.E.; Cuthbert, R.N.; Halton, P.; Ivanov, S. Micro-sonic sensor technology enables enhanced grass height measurement by a rising plate meter. Inf. Process. Agric. 2019, 6, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Moeckel, T.; Safari, H.; Reddersen, B.; Fricke, T.; Wachendorf, M. Fusion of ultrasonic and spectral sensor data for improving the estimation of biomass in grasslands with heterogeneous sward structure. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Lussem, U.; Bolten, A.; Menne, J.; Gnyp, M.L.; Schellberg, J.; Bareth, G. Estimating biomass in temperate grassland with high resolution canopy surface models from UAV-based RGB images and vegetation indices. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2019, 13, 034525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Fricke, T.; Richter, F.; Wachendorf, M. Assessment of forage mass from grassland swards by height measurement using an ultrasonic sensor. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 79, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Wijesingha, J.; Astor, T.; Schulze-Brüninghoff, D.; Wengert, M.; Wachendorf, M. Predicting forage quality of grasslands using UAV-borne imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Cooper, S.D.; Roy, D.P.; Schaaf, C.B.; Paynter, I. Examination of the potential of terrestrial laser scanning and structure-from-motion photogrammetry for rapid nondestructive field measurement of grass biomass. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Yuan, W.; Li, J.; Bhatta, M.; Shi, Y.; Baenziger, P.S.; Ge, Y. Wheat Height Estimation Using LiDAR in Comparison to Ultrasonic Sensor and UAS. Sensors 2018, 18, 3731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Atzberger, C. Advances in remote sensing of agriculture: Context description, existing operational monitoring systems and major information needs. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 949–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Wachendorf, M.; Fricke, T.; Möckel, T. Remote sensing as a tool to assess botanical composition, structure, quantity and quality of temperate grasslands. Grass Forage Sci. 2018, 73, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Taravat, A.; Wagner, M.P.; Oppelt, N. Automatic grassland cutting status detection in the context of spatiotemporal Sentinel-1 imagery analysis and artificial neural networks. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Duncan, N.B.; Meyer, A.M. Locomotion behavior changes in peripartum beef cows and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Riaboff, L.; Shalloo, L.; Smeaton, A.F.; Couvreur, S.; Madouasse, A.; Keane, M.T. Predicting livestock behaviour using accelerometers: A systematic review of processing techniques for ruminant behaviour prediction from raw accelerometer data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 192, 106610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Herlin, A.; Brunberg, E.; Hultgren, J.; Högberg, N.; Rydberg, A.; Skarin, A. Animal Welfare Implications of Digital Tools for Monitoring and Management of Cattle and Sheep on Pasture. Animals 2021, 11, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Ruuska, S.; Kajava, S.; Mughal, M.; Zehner, N.; Mononen, J. Validation of a pressure sensor-based system for measuring eating, rumination and drinking behaviour of dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 174, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Campbell, D.L.; Lea, J.M.; Keshavarzi, H.; Lee, C. Virtual fencing is comparable to electric tape fencing for cattle behavior and welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Goliński, P.; Sobolewska, P.; Stefańska, B.; Golińska, B. Virtual Fencing Technology for Cattle Management in the Pasture Feeding System—A Review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Hanrahan, L.; Geoghegan, A.; O’Donovan, M.; Griffith, V.; Ruelle, E.; Wallace, M.; Shalloo, L. Pasture Base Ireland: A grassland decision support system and national database. Comp. Electron. Agric. 2017, 136, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Hopkins, A.; Wilkins, R.J. Temperate grassland: Key developments in the last century and future perspectives. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 503–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Capstaff, N.M.; Miller, A.J. Improving the yield and nutritional quality of forage crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Toupet, R.; Gibbons, A.T.; Goodacre, S.L.; Bell, M.J. Effect of Herbage Density, Height and Age on Nutrient and Invertebrate Generalist Predator Abundance in Permanent and Temporary Pastures. Land 2020, 9, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Piutti, S.; Romillac, N.; Chanseaume, A.; Slezack-Deschaumes, S.; Manneville, V.; Amiaud, B. Using temporary pastures to enhance soil fertility. Fourrages 2015, 223, 179–187. Available online: http://www.afpf-asso.fr/index/action/ (accessed on 6 February 2023).
  199. Bailey, J.; Brandsma, J.; Busqué, J.; Elsaesser, M.; Goliński, P.; Crespo, D.G.; Hopkins, A.; Hulin-Bertaud, S.; Krause, A.; Lind, V.; et al. Profitability of permanent grassland. In EIP-AGRI Focus Group Permanent Grassland: Final Report; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2016; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
  200. Goliński, P.; Bailey, J.; Crespo, D.G.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Lind, V.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; O’Donovan, M.; Peeters, A.; Porqueddu, C.; Reheul, D. Sustainable grassland production by increased functional group diversification. In EIP-AGRI Focus Group Permanent Grassland; European Commission: Brussel, Belgium, 2014; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  201. Lorenz, H.; Reinsch, T.; Kluß, C.; Taube, F.; Loges, R. Does the Admixture of Forage Herbs Affect the Yield Performance, Yield Stability and Forage Quality of a Grass Clover Ley? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Van Eekeren, N.; Wagenaar, J.P.; Jansonius, P.J. Mineral content of chicory (Cichorium intybus) and narrow leaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in grass-white clover mixtures. In Proceedings of the Quality Legume-Based Forage Systems for Contrasting Environments, Final Meeting, Gumpemstein, Austria, 30 August–3 September 2006; pp. 121–123. [Google Scholar]
  203. Pirhofer-Walzl, K.; Søegaard, K.; Høgh-Jensen, H.; Eriksen, J.; Sanderson, M.A.; Rasmussen, J. Forage herbs improve mineral composition of grassland herbage. Grass Forage Sci. 2011, 66, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Fraser, T.J.; Rowarth, J.S. Legumes, Herbs or Grass for Lamb Performance? New Zealand Grassl. Assoc. 1996, 58, 49–52. Available online: https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/4557 (accessed on 1 March 2023). [CrossRef]
  205. Scales, G.H.; Knight, T.L.; Saville, D.J. Effect of herbage species and feeding level on internal parasites and production performance of grazing lambs. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 1995, 38, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Budny, A.; Kupczyńki, R.; Sobolewska, S.; Korczyński, M.; Zawadzki, W. Samolecznictwo i ziołolecznictwo w profilaktyce i leczeniu zwierząt gospodarskich. Acta Sci. Pol. Med. Vet. 2012, 11, 5–24. [Google Scholar]
  207. McCarthy, K.M.; McAloon, C.G.; Lynch, M.B.; Pierce, K.M.; Mulligan, F.J. Herb species inclusion in grazing swards for dairy cows—A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 1416–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Dhamala, N.R.; Søegaard, K.; Eriksen, J. Competitive forbs in high-producing temporary grasslands with perennial ryegrass and red clover can increase plant diversity and herbage yield. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2015, 20, 209–211. [Google Scholar]
  209. Høgh-Jensen, H.; Nielsen, B.; Thamsborg, S.M. Productivity and quality, competition and facilitation of chicory in ryegrass/legume-based pastures under various nitrogen supply levels. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 24, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Hennessy, D.; Delaby, L.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Shalloo, L. Increasing Grazing in Dairy Cow Milk Production Systems in Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Mee, J.F.; Boyle, L.A. Assessing whether dairy cow welfare is “better” in pasture-based than in confinement-based management systems. N. Z. Vet. J. 2020, 68, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Arnott, G.; Ferris, C.; O’Connell, N. Review: Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based production systems. Animals 2017, 11, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Black, R.A.; Krawczel, P.D. A Case Study of Behaviour and Performance of Confined or Pastured Cows during the Dry Period. Animals 2016, 6, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Charlton, G.L.; Rutter, S.M. The behaviour of housed dairy cattle with and without pasture access: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 192, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Alvåsen, K.; Mörk, M.J.; Sandgren, C.H.; Thomsen, P.T.; Emanuelson, U. Herd-level risk factors associated with cow mortality in Swedish dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 4352–4362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Somers, J.G.C.J.; Schouten, W.G.P.; Frankena, K.; Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N.; Metz, J.H.M. Development of claw traits and claw lesions in dairy cows kept on different floor systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Wechsler, B.; Schaub, J.; Friedli, K.; Hauser, R. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000, 69, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Van der Tol, P.P.J.; Metz, J.H.M.; Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N.; Back, W.; Braam, C.R.; Weijs, W.A. Frictional forces required for unrestrained locomotion in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Telezhenko, E.; Bergsten, C.; Magnusson, M. Swedish Holstein’ locomotion on five different solid floors. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium and 5th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Maribor, Slovenia, 11–15 February 2004; pp. 164–166. [Google Scholar]
  220. Chang-Fung-Martel, J.; Harrison, M.T.; Rawnsley, R.; Smith, A.P.; Meinke, H. The impact of extreme climatic events on pasture-based dairy systems: A review. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 1158–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Kumar, B.; Manuja, A.; Aich, P. Stress and its impact on farm animals. Front. Biosci. Elite 2012, 4, 1759–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Liu, J.; Li, L.; Chen, X.; Lu, Y.; Wang, D. Effects of heat stress on body temperature, milk production, and reproduction in dairy cows: A novel idea for monitoring and evaluation of heat stress—A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 32, 1332–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Garner, J.B.; Douglas, M.; Williams, S.R.O.; Wales, W.J.; Marett, L.C.; DiGiacomo, K.; Leury, B.J.; Hayes, B.J. Responses of dairy cows to short-term heat stress in controlled-climate chambers. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Osei-Amponsah, R.; Dunshea, F.R.; Leury, B.J.; Cheng, L.; Cullen, B.; Joy, A.; Abhijith, A.; Zhang, M.H.; Chauhan, S.S. Heat Stress Impacts on Lactating Cows Grazing Australian Summer Pastures on an Automatic Robotic Dairy. Animals 2020, 10, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Charlier, J.; Claerebout, E.; De Mûelenaere, E.; Vercruysse, J. Associations between dairy herd management factors and bulk tank milk antibody levels against Ostertagia ostertagi. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 133, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Alothman, M.; Hogan, S.A.; Hennessy, D.; Dillon, P.; Kilcawley, K.N.; O’Donovan, M.; Tobin, J.; Fenelon, M.A.; O’Callaghan, T.F. The “grass-fed” milk story: Understanding the impact of pasture feeding on the composition and quality of bovine milk. Foods 2019, 8, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Shalloo, L.; Moran, B.; O’Brien, D. Define and verify pasture base—How does Irish “pasture fed” compare to the world. In Proceedings of the Grass-Fed Dairy Conference, Naas, Ireland, 25 October 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  228. Lock, L.A.; Shingfield, K.J. Optimising Milk Composition. BSAP Occas. Public. 2004, 29, 107–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Månsson, H.L. Fatty Acids in Bovine Milk Fat. Food Nutr. Res. 2008, 52, 1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Liput, K.P.; Lepczyński, A.; Ogłuszka, M.; Nawrocka, A.; Poławska, E.; Grzesiak, A.; Ślaska, B.; Pareek, C.S.; Czarnik, U.; Pierzchała, M. Effects of Dietary n–3 and n–6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Inflammation and Cancerogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  231. O’Callaghan, F.T.; Sugrue, I.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P.; Stanton, C. Nutritional Aspects of Raw Milk: A Beneficial or Hazardous Food Choice. In Raw Milk; Nero, L.A., de Carvalho, A.F., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; Chapter 7; pp. 127–148. [Google Scholar]
  232. Bauman, E.D.; Griinari, J.M. Nutritional Regulation of Milk Fat Synthesis. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 2003, 23, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Palmquist, L.D.; Beaulieu, D.A.; Barbano, D.M. Feed and Animal Factors Influencing Milk Fat Composition. J. Dairy Sci. 1993, 76, 1753–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Knutsen, M.T.; Olsen, H.G.; Tafintseva, V.; Svendsen, M.; Kohler, A.; Kent, M.P.; Lien, S. Unravelling Genetic Variation underlying De Novo-Synthesis of Bovine Milk Fatty Acids. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Moate, J.P.; Chalupa, W.; Boston, R.C.; Lean, I.J. Milk Fatty Acids. I. Variation in the Concentration of Individual Fatty Acids in Bovine Milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4730–4739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. O’Callaghan, F.T.; Faulkner, H.; McAulie, S.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Hennessy, D.; Dillon, P.; Kilcawley, K.N.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P. Quality Characteristics, Chemical Composition, and Sensory Properties of Butter from Cows on Pasture Versus Indoor Feeding Systems. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 9441–9460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Kučević, D.; Trivunović, S.; Bogdanović, V.; Čobanović, K.; Janković, D.; Stanojević, D. Composition of Raw Milk from Conventional and Organic Dairy Farming. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2016, 32, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Techeira, N.; Keel, K.; Garay, A.; Harte, F.; Mendoza, A.; Cartaya, A.; Farina, S.; López-Pedemonte, T. Milk fatty acid profile from grass feeding strategies on 2 Holstein genotypes: Implications for health and technological properties. JDS Commun. 2023, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Benbrook, M.C.; Davis, D.R.; Heins, B.J.; Latif, M.A.; Leifert, C.; Peterman, L.; Butler, G.; Faergeman, O.; Abel-Caines, S.; Baranski, M. Enhancing the Fatty Acid Profile of Milk through Forage-Based Rations, with Nutrition Modeling of Diet Outcomes. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 681–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Kuczyńska, B.A. Składniki Bioaktywne i Parametry Technologiczne Mleka Produkowanego w Gospodarstwach Ekologicznych i Konwencjonalnych; SGGW: Warszawa, Poland, 2011; pp. 1–120. [Google Scholar]
  241. O’Callaghan, F.T.; Mannion, D.T.; Hennessy, D.; McAuli_e, S.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Leeuwendaal, N.; Beresford, T.P.; Dillon, P.; Kilcawley, K.N.; Sheehan, J.J.; et al. Effect of Pasture Versus Indoor Feeding Systems on Quality Characteristics, Nutritional Composition, and Sensory and Volatile Properties of Full-Fat Cheddar Cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 6053–6073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Or-Rashid, M.M.; Odongo, N.E.; Subedi, B.; Karki, P.; McBride, B.W. Fatty Acid Composition of Yak (Bos Grunniens) Cheese Including Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Trans-18:1 Fatty Acids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 1654–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Segato, S.; Galaverna, G.; Contiero, B.; Berzaghi, P.; Caligiani, A.; Marseglia, A.; Cozzi, G. Identification of Lipid Biomarkers to Discriminate between the Different Production Systems for Asiago PDO Cheese. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 9887–9892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Prema, D.; Pilfold, J.L.; Krauchi, J.; Church, J.S.; Donkor, K.K.; Cinel, B. Rapid Determination of Total Conjugated Linoleic Acid Content in Select Canadian Cheeses by 1 h Nmr Spectroscopy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 9915–9921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Chion, A.R.; Tabacco, E.; Giaccone, D.; Peiretti, P.G.; Battelli, G.; Borreani, G. Variation of Fatty Acid and Terpene Profiles in Mountain Milk and Toma Piemontese Cheese as Affected by Diet Composition in Different Seasons. Food Chem. 2010, 121, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Couvreur, S.; Hurtaud, C.; Lopez, C.; Delaby, L.; Peyraud, J.L. The Linear Relationship between the Proportion of Fresh Grass in the Cow Diet, Milk Fatty Acid Composition, and Butter Properties. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 1956–1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Mallia, S.; Piccinali, P.; Rehberger, B.; Badertscher, R.; Escher, F.; Schlichtherle-Cerny, H. Determination of Storage Stability of Butter Enriched with Unsaturated Fatty Acids/Conjugated Linoleic Acids (UFA/CLA) Using Instrumental and Sensory Methods. Int. Dairy J. 2008, 18, 983–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Villeneuve, P.M.; Lebeuf, Y.; Gervais, R.; Tremblay, G.F.; Vuillemard, J.C.; Fortin, J.; Chouinard, P.Y. Milk Volatile Organic Compounds and Fatty Acid Profile in Cows Fed Timothy as Hay, Pasture, or Silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 7181–7194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Bargo, F.; Delahoy, J.E.; Schroeder, G.F.; Baumgard, L.H.; Muller, L.D. Supplementing Total Mixed Rations with Pasture Increase the Content of Conjugated Linoleic Acid in Milk. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 131, 226–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Faulkner, H.; O’Callaghan, T.F.; McAuliffe, S.; Hennessy, D.; Stanton, C.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Kerry, J.P.; Kilcawley, K.N. Effect of different forage types on the volatile and sensory properties of bovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 1034–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Esposito, G.; Masucci, F.; Napolitano, F.; Braghieri, A.; Romano, R.; Manzo, N.; di Francia, A. Fatty Acid and Sensory Profiles of Caciocavallo Cheese as Affected by Management System. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 1918–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Coppa, M.; Ferlay, A.; Monsallier, F.; Verdier-Metz, I.; Pradel, P.; Didienne, R.; Farruggia, A.; Montel, M.C.; Martin, B. Milk Fatty Acid Composition and Cheese Texture and Appearance from Cows Fed Hay or Different Grazing Systems on Upland Pastures. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 1132–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. Radkowska, I.; Herbut, E. The Effect of Housing System of Simmental Cows on Processing Suitability of Milk and Quality of Dairy Products. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep. 2017, 35, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
  254. Mallia, S.; Escher, F.; Dubois, S.; Schieberle, P.; Schlichtherle-Cerny, H. Characterization and Quantification of Odor-Active Compounds in Unsaturated Fatty Acid/Conjugated Linoleic Acid (UFA/CLA)-Enriched Butter and in Conventional Butter during Storage and Induced Oxidation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 7464–7472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Ryhänen, L.E.; Tallavaara, K.; Griinari, J.M.; Jaakkola, S.; Mantere-Alhonen, S.; Shingfield, K.J. Production of Conjugated Linoleic Acid Enriched Milk and Dairy Products from Cows Receiving Grass Silage Supplemented with a Cereal-Based Concentrate Containing Rapeseed Oil. Int. Dairy J. 2005, 15, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Silva, G.C.C.; Silva, S.P.M.; Prates, J.A.M.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Rosa, H.J.D.; Rego, O.A. Physicochemical Traits and Sensory Quality of Commercial Butter Produced in the Azores. Int. Dairy J. 2019, 88, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Steinshamn, H.; Thuen, E.; Brenøe, U.T. Clover species in grass-clover silages affects milk fatty acid composition. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2007, 16 (Suppl. S1), 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Lee, M.R.F.; Theobald, V.J.; Gordon, N.; Leyland, M.; Tweed, J.K.S.; Fychan, R.; Scollan, N.D. The effect of high polyphenol oxidase grass silage on metabolism of polyunsaturated fatty acids and nitrogen across the rumen of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 5076–5087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Steijns, J. Milk Ingredients as Nutraceuticals. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2001, 54, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Giansanti, F.; Panella, G.; Leboffe, L.; Antonini, G. Lactoferrin from Milk: Nutraceutical and Pharmacological Properties. Pharmaceuticals 2016, 9, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Haque, E.; Chand, R. Antihypertensive and Antimicrobial Bioactive Peptides from Milk Proteins. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 227, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Guha, S.; Sharma, H.; Deshwal, G.K.; Rao, P.S. A comprehensive review on bioactive peptides derived from milk and milk products of minor dairy species. Food Prod. Process. Nutri. 2021, 3, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Mills, S.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C.; Fitzgerald, G.F.; Stanton, C. Milk Intelligence: Mining Milk for Bioactive Substances Associated with Human Health. Int. Dairy J. 2011, 21, 377–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Bhat, F.Z.; Bhat, H. Milk and Dairy Products as Functional Foods: A Review. Int. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Ali, M.A.; Kamal, M.M.; Rahman, M.H.; Siddiqui, M.N.; Haque, M.A.; Saha, K.K.; Rahman, M.A. Functional dairy products as a source of bioactive peptides and probiotics: Current trends and future prospective. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 59, 1263–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Flom, J.D.; Sicherer, S.H. Epidemiology of Cow’s Milk Allergy. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Barłowska, J.; Litwińczuk, Z.; Brodziak, A.; Chabuz, W. Effect of the production season on nutritional value and technological suitability of milk obtained from intensive (TMR) and traditional feeding system of cows. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2021, 1, 1205–1220. Available online: https://office2.jmbfs.org/index.php/JMBFS/article/view/7231 (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  268. De La Torre, S.; Vicente, F.; Royo, L. Dairy cows eating grass produce milk with a higher proportion of fat-soluble antioxidants. In Sustainable meat and milk production from grasslands. In Proceedings of the 27th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Cork, Ireland, 17–21 June 2018; pp. 443–445. [Google Scholar]
  269. Mehta, B.M. Chemical composition of milk and milk products. In Handbook of Food Chemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 511–553. [Google Scholar]
  270. Clarke, H.J.; Griffin, C.; Rai, D.K.; O’Callaghan, T.F.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Kerry, J.P.; Kilcawley, K.N. Dietary compounds influencing the sensorial, volatile and phytochemical properties of bovine milk. Molecules 2019, 25, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Gulati, A.; Galvin, N.; Lewis, E.; Hennessy, D.; O’Donovan, M.; McManus, J.J.; Fenelon, M.A.; Guinee, T.P. Outdoor grazing of dairy cows on pasture versus indoor feeding on total mixed ration: Effects on gross composition and mineral content of milk during lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 2710–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  272. Horn, J.; Isselstein, J. How do we feed grazing livestock in the future? A case for knowledge-driven grazing systems. Grass Forage Sci. 2022, 77, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Trotter, M.G.; Lamb, D.W.; Donald, G.E.; Schneider, D.A. Evaluating an active optical sensor for quantifying and mapping green herbage mass and growth in a perennial grass pasture. Crop Pasture Sci. 2010, 61, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Lopatin, J.; Fassnacht, F.E.; Kattenborn, T.; Schmidtlein, S. Mapping plant species in mixed grassland communities using close range imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 201, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Zhang, Y.; Shao, Z. Assessing of urban vegetation biomass in combination with LiDAR and high-resolution remote sensing images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2021, 42, 964–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  276. Grüner, E.; Astor, T.; Wachendorf, M. Prediction of biomass and N fixation of legume–grass mixtures using sensor fusion. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 603921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Rivas, A.; Chamoso, P.; González-Briones, A.; Corchado, J.M. Detection of cattle using drones and convolutional neural networks. Sensors 2018, 18, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Gargiulo, J.I.; Eastwood, C.R.; Garcia, S.C.; Lyons, N.A. Dairy farmers with larger herd sizes adopt more precision dairy technologies. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 5466–5473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Schieltz, J.M.; Okanga, S.; Allan, B.F.; Rubenstein, D.I. GPS tracking cattle as a monitoring tool for conservation and management. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2017, 34, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Harris, N.R.; Johnson, D.E.; McDougald, N.K.; George, M.R. Social associations and dominance of individuals in small herds of cattle. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 60, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Aaser, M.F.; Staahltoft, S.K.; Korsgaard, A.H.; Trige-Esbensen, A.; Alstrup, A.K.O.; Sonne, C.; Pertoldi, C.; Bruhn, D.; Frikke, J.; Linder, A.C. Is virtual fencing an effective way of enclosing cattle? Personality, herd behaviour and welfare. Animals 2022, 12, 842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Eastwood, C.; Ayre, M.; Nettle, R.; Rue, B.D. Making sense in the cloud: Farm advisory services in a smart farming future. NJAS—Wagen. J. Life SC 2019, 90, 100298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: Florence, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  284. Leroy, G.; Hoffmann, I.; From, T.; Hiemstra, S.J.; Gandini, G. Perception of livestock ecosystem services in grazing areas. Animal 2018, 12, 2627–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Franke, J.; Keuck, V.; Siegert, F. Assessment of grassland use intensity by remote sensing to support conservation schemes. J. Nat. Conserv. 2012, 20, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Feeding systems (a) continuous grazing; (b) Silvopastoral grazing system in wooded areas (Fot. M. Staniak).
Figure 1. Feeding systems (a) continuous grazing; (b) Silvopastoral grazing system in wooded areas (Fot. M. Staniak).
Agriculture 13 00974 g001
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of pasture feeding.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of pasture feeding.
AdvantagesDisadvantages
EnvironmentLower energy consumption
Less CO2, ammonia, and methane emission
More N losses (nitrate leaching denitrification, NO emissions)
Soil Soil quality improvement (Mob grazing and AMP)Increase in soil compaction
BiodiversityRational grazing increases biodiversityOvergrazing reduces biodiversity
Sward quality and availabilityGrazing reduces the need for sward renewalVariability in forage availability and quality during the grazing season.
Relatively large fluctuations in the composition of the ration
Animal health and welfareLower risk of various diseases
Possibility of natural behavior
Higher risk of infection with internal parasites
The risk of stress caused by weather factors
Milk qualityBetter milk and dairy products qualityMore variable milk quality due to the variability of grass supply and quality
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wróbel, B.; Zielewicz, W.; Staniak, M. Challenges of Pasture Feeding Systems—Opportunities and Constraints. Agriculture 2023, 13, 974. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture13050974

AMA Style

Wróbel B, Zielewicz W, Staniak M. Challenges of Pasture Feeding Systems—Opportunities and Constraints. Agriculture. 2023; 13(5):974. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture13050974

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wróbel, Barbara, Waldemar Zielewicz, and Mariola Staniak. 2023. "Challenges of Pasture Feeding Systems—Opportunities and Constraints" Agriculture 13, no. 5: 974. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agriculture13050974

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop