Mob Grazing Increases Efficiency and Profitability of Livestock Production

2014 Annual Report for LNC11-338

Project Type: Research and Education
Funds awarded in 2011: $199,988.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2015
Region: North Central
State: South Dakota
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Alexander Smart
South Dakota State University

Mob Grazing Increases Efficiency and Profitability of Livestock Production


We continued the mob grazing study that was initiated in 2012 with 9 cooperating producers scattered throughout South Dakota. In 2014, we resampled soils and vegetation at each site. Two graduate students completed data collection for the second year to evaluate the impact of mob grazing on 1) the function of litter and 2) the impact of pasture weeds. We also collected animal behavior data using pedometers on mob grazing versus a low stock density weekly rotation. A third graduate student is in the process of analyzing the economics of mob grazing. We will finish up with analyzing the soil data to determine impact on soil carbon and nitrogen and the economic analysis to determine the profitability of mob grazing.

Objectives/Performance Targets

  • Collect vegetation and soil monitoring data at each site 1 to 2 times per grazing period
  • Evaluate animal behavior in mob grazing versus low stock density weekly rotation.
  • Evaluate economic models for profitability analysis.


1)      Vegetation data collection

We continued the mob grazing study across the different ranches in South Dakota (Figure 1). Stocking density ranged from 20,000 to 1,000,000 lbs of beef per acre with cattle rotated once per day up to nine times per day.

Pre and post grazing standing vegetation and litter biomass was sampled during the reporting period at 4 sites in South Dakota. Sites were located in Quinn (western SD), Selby (north central SD), Chamberlain (central SD), and Hayti (eastern SD) to look at harvesting efficiency, trampling, and biomass differences across a climatic gradient (Figure 2). Paired 0.25 m2 quadrats were clipped before and after grazing along 8 transects per site with 10 replicates per transect. Standing vegetation and litter biomass samples were placed in separate bags, dried at 70 C for 72 hours, and weighed. New trampled litter biomass after grazing was measured by placing green litter into a separate bag. Between 80 and 90% of the standing vegetation biomass was utilized (consumption + trampled) during mob grazing at the sampled sites (Figure 2). Harvest efficiency (percent of the pre grazed forage that is consumed by livestock) was 33% at Quinn, 43% at Selby, 63% at Chamberlain, and 34% at Hayti. To put this into perspective, moderate grazing in season-long grazing systems have a 25% harvest efficiency. Trampling increased from west to east in conjunction with forage production (Figure 2). Cattle trampled 18% at Quinn, 27% at Selby, 19% at Chamberlain, and 41% at Hayti.

We monitored soil temperature and moisture under different vegetation cover types (intact grassland vegetation, bare ground, and mob grazed vegetation) at 4 different sites across South Dakota. Soil temperature was typically higher for bareground treatments than ungrazed or mob grazed treatments irrespective of the far western site (Figure 3) or the eastern site (Figure 4). Soil moisture at the 2 inch depth was variable across treatments and sites but ungrazed vegetation often had lower soil water potential (likely from water uptake by intact vegetation; Figures 5-6). Results suggest that changes in groundcover from mob grazing may impact soil conditions that are important for microbial activity.

We evaluated litter decomposition at each of the four sites on the ungrazed, bare ground, and mob grazed treatments. There were no differences of litter decomposition of surface litter for the three treatments at the four sites (Figure 7). There was a difference in decomposition rates of among litter types (new litter, old liter, and filter paper) at the four sites (Figure 8). New litter tended to have greater decomposition rates especially at the more mesic sites (Chamberlain and Volga) compared with the drier sites (Eureka and Quinn).

At three sites, weedy plants were measured for their canopy volume before and after grazing at three sites in 2013 (Figure 12). Mob grazing reduced buckbrush volume compared to no grazing at Chamberlain. At Selby, mob grazing had a slight reduction in buckbrush volume compared with no change in the rotational grazed pasture. At Hayti, wormwood sage did not reduce in volume in either rotational or mob grazing. When an area was treated with 2,4-D, the cattle consumed the wormwood sage and completely defoliated the plants. It was likely that cattle were attracted to the plants due to the salty flavor of the herbicide treated plants. This may warrant further study.

2)      Animal behavior

Bred heifers, weighing approximately 1000 lbs each, were allocated to mob grazing (200,000 lb/acre live weight) moved 3x per day and a weekly rotation (4000 lb/acre live weight). The grazing period was during the month of July on smooth bromegrass/Kentucky bluegrass dominated pasture. Forage samples were collected before and after grazing to determine utilization, trampling, and harvest efficiency. Pedometers were fitted to 3 heifers on each mob grazing paddock and on 2 heifers of each weekly rotation paddock. Pedometers recorded number of steps, lying time, and number of times the animal laid down (lying bouts).

Heifers in the mob grazing system were stocked two times higher than the weekly rotation. This resulted in a higher grazing pressure. The utilization was 1.5 times greater than the weekly rotation. Trampling was similar between the two systems. Harvest efficiency was almost 2 times greater for the mob system than the weekly rotation. Harvest efficiency as a function of body weight was not limiting intake in either system as bred heifers would be expected to consume about 2.5% of body weight. The daily activity recorded by the pedometers showed that heifers in the mob system rested 167 minutes less per day, laid down 10 times less, and took 1922 more steps per day than the heifers in the weekly rotation (Table 1). This resulted in heifers in the mob grazing system to walk about ½ mile more per day. It is unclear if heifer activity is influenced by the system or the herd size effect because they were confounded.

Mob grazing provided higher harvest efficiency compared to a moderately stocked weekly rotation. These data provide some insight into the high harvest efficiencies possible with mob grazing. With high harvest efficiencies comes high utilization. High utilization (>60%) of forage biomass from a pasture under season-long grazing conditions without rest is detrimental to forage growth. Under a more intensive rotation, such as mob grazing where the pasture gets grazed one day out of the entire year, the long recovery time allows the forage to regrow and build an adequate root system. In addition, the grass species grazed where more mature, and the higher level of utilization does less harm to the species compared to a more vegetative growth stage.

3)      Economic models

In order to test the economics of mob grazing, budgets were set up to compare 4 different grazing systems tested from a University of Nebraska mob grazing trial from 2011-2014 using yearling steers. The four systems were a continuous system, a four pasture one pass through system (4-PR-1), a four pasture twice pass through system (4-PR-2), and mob. Once the profitability of each system was found, static risk analysis was used from the actual budgets. It was found that mob grazing was the least preferred grazing system. Next, the selling price, ADG, and AUM were simulated in order to make the system dynamic. The simulated data was analyzed in a stoplight function, cumulative distribution function, stochastic dominance with respect to a function, stochastic efficiency with respect to a function, and negative exponential utility weighted risk premium function. It was found that on a per acre basis mob is the least preferred system when risks are not considered. As risk aversion increases, mob becomes the third most preferred system.

Next, in accordance to producer testimonies, the systems were tested to see how management changes affected the systems. Mob, continuous, and 4-PR-1 were given different ADG relative to the baseline 4-PR-2 system. The systems were test at a 5%, 12.5%, and 25% decrease in ADG. The purpose of this sensitivity test was to see if management changes could make the systems more profitable. Even with Mob having the same ADG as other systems, it was still less profitable due to the high labor cost of the system. A producer grazing yearling cattle would be economically better off to either graze each pasture twice such as the 4-PR-2 or continuously graze.  

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

We have completed two years of the mob grazing study. So far we have gained some insight into the mechanisms governing the trampling effect and adding litter to cover bare ground in relation to stocking density, plant height, and location (influence of local plant-soil-climate factors). Mob grazing did increase the distribution of cattle manure. Producers are getting an increase in harvest efficiency, probably 40-50%, which is almost twice that over season-long continuous grazing at a moderate stocking rate. It remains to be seen how the soil health will change, ultimately affecting plant productivity. The economic analysis using animal data from a yearling study showed mob grazing to not be as profitable as other simple rotations or continuous grazing. An economic simulation needs to be performed using cow-calf production data and the increased grazing efficiencies (supporting higher stocking rates).  

Smart gave a presentation at the 2015 NCR-SARE Farmers Forum, held in conjunction with the Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society (NPSAS) Winter Conference. A video recording of this is available online through NCR-SARE’s YouTube channel at:


Gary Howie
22990 Sharpe Road
New Underwood, SD 57761
Office Phone: 6055151427
Charles Totton
34655 240th Street
Chamberlain, SD 57325
Office Phone: 6057340349
Doug Sieck
30940 130th Street
Selby, SD 57472
Office Phone: 6058487325
Clifford Millsapps
809 Herrick Street
Gary, SD 57237
Office Phone: 6058800658
Pat Guptill
23502 Big Foote Road
Quinn, SD 57775
Office Phone: 6053862323
Rick Smith
45062 180th Street
Hayti, SD 57241
Office Phone: 6058807384
Dan Rasmussen
HC76 Box 20
Belvidere, SD 57521
Office Phone: 6053442250
Randy Holmquist
25267 Holmquist Road
Reliance, SD 57569
Office Phone: 6054735356
Dallas Anderson
11149 318th Ave
Eureka, SD 57437
Office Phone: 6054372285