Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation

Best-bet practices for managing the

Mitchell grasslands of Queensland
A technical guide of options for optimising animal
production, profitability and land condition
 Best-bet practices for managing the Mitchell grasslands of Queensland
A technical guide of options for optimising animal production, profitability and
land condition

By David Phelps
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Longreach Office
PO Box 519
Longreach QLD, 4730

© State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2012.

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The
copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence.

Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from DEEDI, to use this publication in accordance with
the licence terms.

You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation as the source of the publication.

For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 2

Contents
1. Introduction 4

2. How this guide was developed 5

3. Using this guide 6

4. Guidelines for grazing and fire management across northern Australia 7

5. Current situation in the Mitchell grasslands 11

5.1. Land types and climate 11
5.2. Land condition 12
5.3. History of grazing use 16
5.4. Property development with fences and waters 16
5.5. Stocking rate management 17
5.6. Pasture rest 17
5.7. Grazing system 17
5.8. Prescribed burning 17
5.9. Current issues and trends 18

6. Best-bet management of the Mitchell grasslands 19

6.1. Matching pasture supply to animal demand on land in generally good condition 19
6.1.1. Signs 20
6.1.2. Causes 20
6.1.3. Management response: improve stocking rate management supplemented by pasture spelling 20
6.1.4. Management action: match stocking rate to long-term carrying capacity 21
6.1.5. Management action: use forage budgeting to adjust stocking rate to seasonal conditions 27
6.1.6. Management action: implement pasture resting 32
6.1.7. Management action: implement prescribed burning 33
6.2. Pasture in poor (C) condition 35
6.2.1. Signs 37
6.2.2. Causes 37
6.2.3. Management response: reduce carrying capacity to match land condition, implement wet season
spelling and use forage budgeting 38
6.2.4. Management action: reduce long term carrying capacity to match land condition 38
6.2.5. Management action: implement pasture resting 39
6.2.6. Management action: use forage budgeting to adjust stocking rate to seasonal conditions 42
6.3. Woody plant problem 44
6.3.1. Signs 44
6.3.2. Causes 45
6.3.3. Management response: fire and grazing 46
6.3.4. Management action: use prescribed fire to kill or suppress woody plants 46
6.4. Ungrazed areas distant from water 48
6.4.1. Signs 48
6.4.2. Causes 48
6.4.3. Management response: develop water point and paddock infrastructure 48
6.4.4. Management action: install more water points in large paddocks 48
6.4.5. Management action: optimise paddock size 51

7. Conclusion 54

8. Contributing to best-bet practices in the Mitchell grasslands 54

9. Glossary of terms 55

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 3

1. Introduction
This technical guide is designed to help Other regional versions of this technical guide
inform and improve grazing management in are available for the Victoria River District
the Mitchell grasslands of western (VRD Northern Territory), Barkly (NT), and
Queensland. It focuses on four major themes: Maranoa Balonne, Fitzroy Basin and
managing stocking rate, spelling pasture, Burdekin regions of Queensland. Further
burning and developing the property with planned versions include Alice Springs (NT),
more fences and waters. The guide is a Kimberley (WA) and the Southern Gulf
technical resource for use by those working (Queensland).
with producers to improve the management
of grazing lands for beef production. The information in this guide has been
derived from various sources, including a
The guide is a product of the Northern review of research reports, biological and
Grazing Systems (NGS) initiative which has economic modelling of management options,
been developed and implemented as a and the input of producers and technical
partnership between Meat and Livestock specialists from each region.
Australia (MLA), CSIRO, AgriScience
Queensland (a service of the Department of The next phase of the NGS initiative, after the
Employment, Economic Development and production of this technical guide, will
Innovation), the Northern Territory (NT) Dept continue to work with producers and their
of Resources, and the West Australian (WA) advisors in the region to increase awareness,
Dept of Agriculture and Food. This initiative understanding and uptake of improved
has been designed to ensure that the beef grazing practices. The technical guide will be
cattle industry in Queensland, the NT and used to inform this activity and, over time, the
northern WA derives the full benefit from guide itself will be improved by the
research on how best to manage grazing information and experiences shared by
country for beef production. producers, their advisors, and researchers.
We welcome your feedback and to help
improve this product.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 4

2. How this guide was developed
This technical guide was developed by This testing of options provides:
combining information from: 1. a review of  a way of extrapolating responses to
research across northern Australia; 2. using a grazing management measured in a
pasture and animal production model grazing trial to a wider range of land
integrated with an economics model; and 3. types and climate conditions
expert knowledge and experience of  a way to test multiple variations in
producers and technical specialists from the grazing management that would be
region. In more detail, these were: expensive and time-consuming to test
on the ground.
1. A review of reports from completed
research on grazing land management 3. The combined knowledge and experience
relevant to northern Australia (Queensland, of producers and technical specialists from
Northern Territory, and the northern the region, including their assessment of the
rangelands of WA—Kimberley and Pilbara) most relevant and useful outputs from the
which focused on four themes: review of research and the modelling. This
 managing stocking rate was captured over two workshops and direct
 pasture rest input to reports including this Guide. This
 burning and local input also helped develop plans for the
 intensifying property infrastructure next phase of the Northern Grazing Systems
with more fences and waters. (NGS) initiative in the region and identified
and prioritised information gaps.
2. Testing different management options
using the GRASP and ENTERPRISE Not all practices, or the many variations of
computer models to identify practices with the these practices, have been objectively
greatest benefits and narrow down the most evaluated, and their impacts measured, in
cost-effective ways of implementing these each region. Even where there is solid data
practices. The GRASP model simulates and on a practice, it often represents only one
tests the effects of stocking rate, pasture rest land type and a particular sequence of
and fire on pasture and animal productivity. seasonal conditions. Furthermore,
Grazing trial data and pasture growth studies information from grazing trials or other
from the 1930s to the present time have been sources of hard data needs to be considered
used to develop GRASP, which can be run in the context of the whole property. Local
for specific land types and over any sequence knowledge and experience combined with the
of years. The ENTERPRISE spreadsheet biological and enterprise modelling have
model assesses the economic returns of therefore been very important in helping form
these practices, based on the pasture and the guidelines and ideas in this Technical
animal productivity and management Guide. As there will be some degree of
practices used in GRASP. The herd and uncertainty about what practices will work
paddock structure were typical of a beef best in any particular situation, it is important
enterprise within the region, based on expert to see the guidelines and ideas as input to
knowledge from graziers, extension and the decision-making process and not as set
research officers and consultants. prescriptions or recipes.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 5

3. Using this guide
The information in the Guide has been from the research findings, modelling output
developed around four major issues common and the views of producers and technical
to most regions of northern Australia. These specialists in the region.
are:
The Guide can be used by operatives
1. How to best manage stocking rates over working with producers in several ways:
time to keep pasture in good condition 1. As a means of improving their
and optimise beef production. understanding of key grazing
2. How to most cost-effectively recover management practices and their
pasture that has declined to poor (or ‘C’) awareness of the evidence base that
condition. underpins these practices.
3. How to deal with thickening or 2. As a source of ideas for management
encroachment of woody plants. strategies that will most cost-effectively
4. How to most cost-effectively utilise address a particular issue or objective.
ungrazed pasture that is distant from 3. As a guide to which issues, practices, and
stock water. variations of these, deserve additional
extension activity via demonstration sites
For each issue, information is presented on: or other processes.
4. As a guide to which issues/practices, and
 Signs (how the issue is expressed) variations of these, require more research
 Underlying causes and/or on-property testing.
 Responses—the key practices and their 5. As a source of new information and
rationale examples for extension activities and
 The specific management actions that information products, including
can contribute to achieving better EDGEnetwork Grazing Land
practice and the evidence-base for these. Management (GLM) workshop materials.
 How to implement these actions. 6. As a means of capturing new insights and
 The trade-offs, caveats, uncertainties information from interactions with
and other issues associated with this producers, property case studies and
information. demonstrations, additional research, and
additional biological and economic
The Guide is designed to be technical and modelling.
detailed so that it captures the information,
insights, ideas and uncertainties that arose

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 6

4. Guidelines for grazing and fire management across
northern Australia
This technical guide outlines best-bet Within the Mitchell grasslands, stocking rate
management guidelines for common grazing and pasture rest are the main management
management issues experienced in the actions when managing land condition ((Table
Table
Mitchell grasslands of Queensland. It draws 1). Infrastructure is important when
on information from recognised literature addressing areas which are rarely grazed due
sources, locally documented demonstrations to long distances from water and fire can be
and regional grazier experiences. used to control woody plant problems (e.g.
gidyea encroachment into open downs).

Table 1. Management factors than can be used to manage the four key issues in the Mitchell
grasslands.

Issue Management factor

Infrastructure Stocking rate Pasture rest Fire

1. Managing good (A and B) (*) *** * *

condition country
2. Poor pasture condition (*) *** *** *
3. Woody plant problems * * ***
4. Ungrazed areas distant from ***
water
***—strong effect, **—medium effect, *—some effect, (*)—an interaction but not necessarily an
effect.
This document draws on information from
These issues and management factors are recognised literature sources, locally
common across northern Australia. The documented demonstrations and regional
general guidelines that are applicable in the grazier experiences. The likely reliability and
grazing lands of northern Australia are effectiveness of some these practices have
tabulated below (Table 2) and expanded been simulated with two different models run
upon in discussions at the regional level for in conjunction: the GRASP model tested the
each of the management issues. ecological effects of management actions;
and Enterprise tested the economic
How to recognise the signs and underlying outcomes. The outcomes of these Bio-
causes of these issues within the Mitchell economic models are included. Gaps in
grasslands is summarised in Table 3. information have been highlighted and are
recommended for further research.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 7

Table 2. Guidelines for managing issues in the grazing lands of northern Australia.

Principle 1. Use fences (paddocks) and water points to manipulate grazing distribution.

Guideline 1.1. Smaller paddocks and additional water points can achieve more effective use of
pastures i.e. reduce the proportion of the paddock that experiences little grazing.

In the more extensive grazing areas of northern Australia producers should aim for: paddocks
of 3–4000 ha (30–40 km2) with two water points, and a maximum distance to water of about 3–
4 km to strike a balance between improving grazing distribution and the cost of development.

For the more intensive regions in the eastern part of northern Australia, it is likely that paddocks
of 2000 ha (20 km2) with two water points are sufficient to optimise grazing distribution. Smaller
paddocks may still benefit from sub-division where cattle show a strong preference for land
types within a paddock.

To minimise the development of large sacrifice areas around water points the number of head
per water point should be limited to no more than 300 head per water point.
Guideline 1.2. Smaller paddocks and additional water points do not overcome uneven utilisation
by cattle at the plant community or patch scales. Other methods (e.g. fire, careful selection of
water point locations) are needed to improve evenness of utilisation at these scales.

Guideline 1.3. Property development can generate significant increases in livestock production
only where it results in more effective use of the pasture (increasing carrying capacity) as
substantial improvements in individual livestock production are unlikely. If an undeveloped
paddock is already operating at its long-term carrying capacity, paddock development may
improve the sustainability of grazing through better grazing distribution.

Guideline 1.4. Fencing and water points can be used to help protect preferred land types and
sensitive areas from overgrazing. Fencing to separate markedly different land types is an
important strategy for controlling grazing pressure on preferred land types, and to get more
effective use of all pasture resources on a property. It can be a practical option in some
situations and should be considered where property development is planned
.
Principle 2. Managing stocking rates is vital to meeting animal production and land
condition goals.

Guideline 2.1. Set stocking rates to match long term carrying capacity. Plan for the average
paddock stocking rate to match its estimated long-term carrying capacity, as operating at or
around the long-term carrying capacity will help maintain land in good condition. The extent to
which stocking rates can exceed the long-term carrying capacity without reducing economic
returns and/or reducing land condition is unclear.

Guideline 2.2. Regularly assess the need to adjust stocking rates in relation to current and
anticipated feed supply and feed quality. Some variation in stocking rates over time is required
to manage periods of below-average pasture growth. Capacity to vary numbers over time also
provides opportunities to take advantage of periods of above-average pasture growth. The
degree of variation that is most beneficial and achievable for different production systems is
unclear.
Guideline 2.3. Management factors and issues other than forage supply also determine the
need to vary livestock numbers. The adjustment of stocking rates over time should also
consider land condition trend, ground cover, grazing pressure from other herbivores, and
economic risk.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 8

Principle 3. Rest pastures to maintain them in good condition or to restore them from poor
condition to improve pasture productivity.

Guideline 3.1. Rest pastures during the growing season. As a rule of thumb commence the rest
period after 38–50 mm of rain or sufficient to initiate pasture growth at the beginning of the
growing season. If it is difficult to access country after rain then resting should commence
before the wet season starts.

Guideline 3.2. Rest pastures for the whole growing season. Resting pastures for the whole
growing season is likely to provide the most reliable benefit but most of this benefit appears to
accrue from rest during the first half of the growing season.

Guideline 3.3. Pastures need two growing season rests to improve by one ABCD condition
class. Pastures in B condition need rest for one or two growing seasons to improve to A
condition. Pastures in C condition will need longer so plan on taking four good growing seasons
to recover to A condition. Where growing conditions are poor, more rest periods will be
required.

Principle 4. Devise and apply fire regimes that enhance grazing land condition and animal
productivity whilst minimising undesirable impacts.

Guideline 4.1. Use fire to manage woody species. It may not be necessary to kill target
species—topkill can be sufficient to alter the structure of woody populations. Mid-late dry
season fires of moderate to high intensity are most likely to be effective in regulating the density
and biomass of woody plants. Fuel loads are a critical issue—to reduce populations/biomass of
woody species, a minimum fuel load of 2000 kg/ha is suggested.

Guideline 4.2. Use fire to change the composition of the herbaceous layer by killing plants,
influencing recruitment or altering grazing preferences. Most research concerns the control of
wire grasses in Mitchell grasslands and black spear grass pastures where fire is sometimes
(e.g. coarse wire grasses in the Burnett region) but not always effective.

Guideline 4.3. Use fire to change grazing patterns by temporarily improving the attractiveness
of previously ungrazed areas and providing rest to previously grazed areas.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 9

Table 3. Key grazing land management issues for the Mitchell grasslands.
Issue Sign(s) Underlying cause(s)
 Land is mainly in A or B condition.  Variability in pasture growth
 There is generally ample feed for the rates between years, during
whole year in good years, adequate feed years and on different parts
in average seasons and inadequate feed of the property.
towards the end of the year in poor years.  Compounded by limited
Protein ‘drought’ is common in very wet flexibility to vary cattle
1. Matching pasture years. numbers within and
supply to animal  In drought, feed becomes inadequate between years; breeder
demand on land in and the risk of overgrazing increases. enterprises have the least
generally good land  Feeding protein supplements increases flexibility of all.
condition intake by 10-30% and needs to be
considered in feed budgets.
 There may be some overgrazed patches
with low ground cover and the presence
of less desirable species (C condition).
 Continued overgrazing of C condition
patches increases their size and number.
Long-term overgrazing risks declining
paddock land condition.
 Most of the paddock or preferred land  Drought and dieback
type/s are in C condition. events.
 There are still some preferred perennial  Flooding in excess of 1-2
grasses but they are widely spaced and weeks duration.
may be small with low vigour.  Chronic and sustained
 Persistent patch grazing is occurring. excessive grazing pressure.
 Ground cover is highly seasonal and  Selective use of land type
2. Managing generally poor towards the end of the dry or area of paddock.
pastures in poor (C) season with substantial loss of moisture  Can be exacerbated by
land condition through runoff. intense wildfires.
 There is a high proportion of annual  Can be exacerbated on
grasses, forbs or undesirable species. ashy soils.
 Highly nutritious feed may be available
for short periods after rain, but feed
shortages can develop quickly in dry
periods.
 In drought, feed quickly becomes
inadequate and the risk of overgrazing is
very high.
 Increased density of shrubs and trees,  Sequences of very wet
particularly on productive soil types. years.
3. Woody vegetation  Reduced pasture growth when woody  Reduced competition from
thickening vegetation is thick. grasses due to heavy
 Encroachment into open land types. grazing.
 Reduced frequency and/or
intensity of effective fires.
 Significant areas of the paddock receive  Inadequate number and/or
little or no grazing pressure. location of water points in
4. Ungrazed relation to paddock size.
pastures distant  Avoidance of land types
from water with less palatable pastures
or limited accessibility.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 10

5. Current situation in the Mitchell grasslands
5.1. Land types and climate
The Mitchell grasslands are dominated by high rainfall variability. Mean annual rainfall
perennial native Mitchell grasses (Astrebla ranges from 200–550 mm. There is a distinct
spp.) on generally treeless undulating clay summer wet season, with the first summer
downs. There are other country types rains generally starting in late December and
associated with these downs, including finishing by May. The growing season usually
timbered gidyea, boree and mulga lasts for 8–10 weeks during the summer.
woodlands, flooded country and spinifex
sandplains. These other landtypes comprise
approximately 30% of the Mitchell
grasslands. This guide will focus on the open
landtypes.

There are 16 recognised land types within the

Mitchell grasslands (Whish, 2009) namely:

1. Open Downs
2. Ashy Downs
3. Pebbly Downs
4. Flooded Mitchell grasslands
5. Boree Wooded Downs
6. Wooded Downs
7. Soft Gidyea
8. Hard Gidyea
9. Hard Mulga
10. Soft Mulga
11. Soft Mulga Sandridge
12. Spinifex Sandplains
13. Jump-ups
14. Open Alluvia
15. Wooded Alluvia
16. Floodplains

These can be viewed on-line at the

FutureBeef website or ordered on CD-ROM 1 .

The Mitchell grasslands are predominantly

within semi-arid to arid environments with

1
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/27_13350.htm

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 11

5.2. Land condition
Land condition is the capacity of land to Moving between land condition classes is bit
respond to rain and produce useful forage; it like a ball balancing on an incline, as shown
is about productivity and sustainability. It on the right. A and B condition are not too far
relates to the potential to grow useful feed apart, and it does not take too much effort to
and is a good surrogate measure of return to A condition if your land has slid into
ecosystem function. Land condition is B condition. However, it takes considerable
classified into four broad categories: A effort to move from C to B condition.
(good); B (fair); C (poor); and D (very poor) Improving from D to C condition takes a lot of
condition. effort and input, such as earthworks to halt
erosion or chemical control of large areas of
Land condition has three components: weeds.
 Soil condition: the capacity of soil to
absorb and store rainfall, to store and
cycle nutrients, to provide habitat for
seed germination and plant growth, and
to resist erosion.
 Pasture condition: the capacity of the
pasture to capture and convert solar
energy into green leaf, to use rainfall
efficiently to conserve soil condition and
to cycle nutrients; and
 Woodland condition: the capacity of the
woodland to grow pasture, to cycle
nutrients and to regulate groundwater.
Observations in 2006 indicated that
approximately 40% of the open Mitchell grass
Soil condition is assessed by the condition of
land types are in good (A or B) condition,
the soil surface, infiltration capacity and
50% in C condition and 10% in D condition
amount of ground cover. Pasture condition is
(Phelps et al. 2007). Most of the D condition
assessed by the types of perennial grasses
country in the Mitchell grasslands is due to
present, their density and vigour. Woodland
the invasion of prickly acacia (Acacia
condition is measured by the tree basal area
nilotica). Direct observation suggests the area
(TBA m2/ha) and the balance of woody plants
of scalded, patch-eroded D condition land is
and pasture in different land types (Quirk and
increasing within riparian areas and on
McIvor, 2003).
ridges.
The ABCD land condition framework is a
For the Mitchell grasslands, land condition
standard framework for measuring the
(Table 4) is based on:
grazing productivity and health of a grazing
1. The density and yield of 3P grasses
ecosystem across northern Australia. Much of
(perennial, palatable and productive, such
the information about best-bet practices for
as Mitchell grass and blue grass),
grazing land management described in this
presence of weed species and ground
guide will relate to the impact of those
cover (the pasture condition).
practices on land condition. More information
2. Un-eroded, healthy soil (the soil
about grazing land condition can be found in
condition).
the EDGEnetwork GLM and the Stocktake
3. Retaining ‘natural’ tree and shrub density
pasture monitoring workshop packages.
and structure (the woodland condition,
Chilcott et al. 2002).

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 12

Table 4. Summary land condition characteristics for Open Downs.

A CONDITION (GOOD) HAS THE FOLLOWING

CHARACTERISTICS:
 A Mitchell grass tussock every 0.8–1.2 m (high plant
density)
 Pasture with a mix of other plants—generally of high
grazing quality
 Maximum pasture growth and response to rain
 Rated at 100% of the long-term carrying capacity
 No weed infestations
 No erosion
 Good soil surface condition
 Generally good ground cover (less than 30% bare
ground)

B CONDITION (FAIR) HAS THE FOLLOWING

CHARACTERISTICS:
 A Mitchell grass tussock every 2–3 m (moderate plant
density)
 Pasture with a mix of less-favoured or annual plants
 Pasture growth and response to rain reduced by 25%
 Rated at 75-80% of the long-term carrying capacity
 May have some weeds
 May have some signs of erosion
 Generally good soil surface condition
 Generally good to moderate ground cover (30-60% bare
ground by the end of the dry season)

C CONDITION (POOR) HAS THE FOLLOWING

CHARACTERISTICS:
 A Mitchell grass tussock every 20–30 m (low plant
density)
 Pasture dominated by less-favoured, unpalatable or
annual plants
 Pasture growth and response to rain reduced by 55%
 Rated at 45% of the long-term carrying capacity
 May have weed infestations
 May have obvious signs of past erosion and/or declining
soil surface condition
 Generally moderate to poor ground cover (often more
than 60% bare ground at the end of the dry season)

D CONDITION (DEGRADED) HAS THE

FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:
 Almost no Mitchell grass tussocks
 Pasture based on less-favoured, unpalatable or annual
plants with little to no Mitchell grass
 Pasture growth and response to rain reduced by 75%
 Rated at 25% of the long-term carrying capacity
 Will often have weed infestations
 Will often have obvious signs of erosion or scalding,
resulting in hostile environments for plant growth
 Moderate to poor ground cover (generally more than
60% bare ground by the end of the dry season)

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 13

In the open Mitchell grassland land types, still be as productive as A condition—but it is
spacing of Mitchell grass tussocks is a key on a fast slide into B condition. A high
indicator of land condition. The soils, being percentage of weeds in a pasture precludes it
self-mulching clays, are generally resilient from being in A condition. There are
and rarely show signs of erosion. These land situations where the pasture is still healthy
types are open in nature and so there are with a scattered over story of mature prickly
generally no significant impacts of tree basal acacia. This is not A condition. If the Mitchell
area. The wooded land types, especially grass tussock spacing is still in the order of
gidyea and boree, can have high tree basal 1.2–3 m, then it is B condition—but it is on a
area which impacts on pasture growth and fast slide into C condition. Less than this and
hence productivity. Gidyea is an invader of the area is already in C condition and sliding
open downs land types. towards D condition.

As a guide, A condition country has a tussock Areas where prickly acacia has established
every 0.8–1.2 m (high plant density), B as dense stands are usually clearly in D
condition 2–3 m (moderate plant density) and condition. Despite the resilience of the heavy
C condition 20–30 m (low plant density). clay soils, there is often obvious erosion in
Mitchell grass tussocks are generally absent conjunction with these dense stands.
in D condition country, although there may be
isolated clumps or scattered tussocks. This Assessing Land condition in Mitchell grass
guide must be tempered with the contribution country during drought is also problematic.
that Mitchell grass and other 3P grasses are The land will rarely be in A condition during
making to the pasture at the time of the drought, as two to three wet seasons, or an
assessment. A moderate to high abundance exceptionally above average wet season, are
of weeds in the pasture precludes it from needed to restore Mitchell grass tussocks to
being in A condition, even if the tussock full health (a high basal area). D condition
spacing is 0.8–1.2 m. land is relatively easy to assess, as there will
be no sign of Mitchell grass tussocks, and the
Allowances need to be made for lower rainfall landscape will be generally dominated by
areas, such as the Boulia district or Mitchell bare ground or short lived species.
grass pastures within the channel country.
Lower tussock spacing of two for four times The most difficult situation to assess is where
the distance between tussocks—as a there is a high density of grey or blackened
reasonable guide—is expected in these drought-affected Mitchell grass tussocks with
areas. Lower tussock spacing of about twice no signs of shoots due to the lack of rain.
the distance between tussocks should also Tussocks need to be inspected to see if they
be expected in lower fertility soils, shallower still have live groups of tillers capable of
soils, Ashy and Pebbly Downs. In wooded responding to rain, or if completely dead. The
land types the distance between tussocks ‘tussock tug’ guide developed by DEEDI in
under A condition can be as much as 4-5 m 2005 for the Mitchell grass dieback project
although Mitchell grass may be present as can be used to assess if the majority of
isolated clumps of high density. Stony land tussocks are alive or dead. If alive, then land
types within the channel country may have is in B condition. If dead, then it is in C
barley Mitchell grass confined to run-on condition.
patches within an other-wise stone covered
annual herb-field. It is possible during drought for sparse
Mitchell grass tussocks to be present and
Assessing land condition in areas where alive, and responding to the limited soil
prickly acacia is starting to spread is moisture available. There will be few, if any,
problematic. If there are isolated seedlings, or other plant species present so Mitchell grass
young trees up to 1–1.5 m height, and the will dominate the yield. This is still C
pasture and soil is intact, then the land may condition, even though the predominant

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 14

contributor to yield is a 3P grass. A dense Land in that remains in good (A or B)
stand of fragile Mitchell tussocks e.g. condition during drought has a much better
tussocks spaced at 1–2 m, but with only one prospect of recovery than country in poor (C)
tiller emerging following rain, will be in B condition. For instance, recordings made at
condition and at high risk of slipping into C 49 key sites across western Queensland
condition if stocked at a high grazing during drought in 2006 showed there were
pressure relative to the limited feed on offer. more live plants, more seedlings and more
Tussock spacing generally over-rides yield seed in the soil at sites in A or B condition
contribution in Mitchell grass country as the than in C condition (Table 5). There were
determinant of pasture condition. For more dead plants under C condition. The
example, during the drought recovery phase trend was similar following better than
roly poly (Salsoli kali) can dominate pasture average rain in 2009, although most of the
yield. Where there is high density of low old dead Mitchell grass plants had rotted and
yielding—but healthy—Mitchell grass washed away by then.
tussocks the land is in B condition and at a
high risk of slipping into C condition.

Table 5. The relationship between good (A and B) and poor (C) land condition and living or
dead Mitchell grass plants, seedlings and seeds in the soil during and following drought.
The recordings were made at 49 key sites across western Queensland.

Mitchell grass measurement A condition B condition C condition

During drought in 2006
Live Mitchell grass plants (plants/m2) 5.1 2.4 0.4
Dead Mitchell grass plants (plants/m2) 0.5 1.1 1.7
Mitchell grass seedlings (plants/m2) 4.3 2.9 0.5
Mitchell grass seeds in the soil (seeds/m2) 216.4 159.9 32.2

Following drought in 2009

Live Mitchell grass plants (plants/m2) 6.0 3.5 0.6
Dead Mitchell grass plants (plants/m2) 0.1 0.5 0.3
Mitchell grass seedlings (plants/m2) 0.3 1.8 0.6
Mitchell grass seeds in the soil (seeds/m2) 14.3 5.0 0.0

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 15

5.3. History of grazing use
Western Queensland was opened up for The increase in cattle numbers was coupled
pastoralism in the late 1860s, with most of the with increasing number of property sales and
suitable lands grazed under private increasing land prices as many wool
ownership by the late 1880s. Severe and producing families sought to exit the industry
extended drought in the late 1890s through to when offered good prices. In many cases,
1902 saw many properties change ownership third or forth generation wool producing
and a search for more reliable water supplies. families exited the region completely—also
Drilling for water became common by the taking their skills and experience of land
1920s, with flowing water suitable for stock management with them.
discovered at depth in the Great Artesian
Basin. As water became more reliable, Land values now generally exceed the
government settlement schemes created capacity of the country to pay back debt
smaller properties from the large private based on production alone. Sales since
company holdings that had dominated 1999–2000 have included a high value for
ownership for the first 40–50 years. grass, as northern and eastern cattle
producers have bought land rather than agist
Wool production from medium-micron Merino their stock. In the order of 30–40% of current
sheep run on family-operated properties (2010) land values would be based on
dominated the pastoral industry until about speculation of increased property values.
1995, with a peak of sheep numbers and Land prices eased towards of the end of the
production in the 1950s. This was in 2001–2009 ‘Millennium’ drought.
response to high wool prices. Severe drought
in the 1960s and low wool prices in the 1970s The majority of land managers took
led to lower sheep numbers. The wool advantage of relative high livestock prices at
enterprise was based on a core flock of the onset of the 2001–2009 ‘Millennium’
breeders to ensure natural replacement of drought, selling up to 60% of their stock over
sheep as they were culled and sold. Between a two year period. The key reasons for these
the 1960s and late 1990s sheep prices were sales were to prevent crisis feeding, prevent
generally lower than the cost of transport of stock deaths and to retain ground cover to
sheep to market—often leading to delays in preserve future productivity. Such aggressive
de-stocking. early de-stocking has not been documented
historically in the Mitchell grasslands, with
Cattle prices were also low during the 1970s most de-stocking occurring progressively as
and graziers struggled to find the best mix of drought continues. Unfortunately the de-
livestock enterprises for the Mitchell stocking did not prevent the wide-spread
grasslands. By the early 1980s, however, the drought induced death of Mitchell grass. The
northern Mitchell grasslands (e.g. Julia Creek failure of the de-stocking management
and Richmond districts) were starting to be strategy is perplexing and the subject of other
dominated by cattle production—generally investigations (Phelps et al. 2007).
breeding operations—but with some
backgrounding operations. 5.4. Property development with
fences and waters
Strong beef and cattle prices in the late
Infrastructure is continuing to change from
1990s, coupled with low wool prices,
that needed for sheep production to cattle
hastened the decline in sheep numbers, with
production. This means the loss of shearing
wool growing being replaced by cattle
sheds, the conversion of low-set stock
enterprises. By 2010, very few wool sheep
troughs or bore drains to higher-set troughs
remain north of Longreach. Some graziers
for cattle access. Fences have changed from
have substituted meat sheep breeds such as
five plain and one barb wire or netting to
Damara and Dorpa or goats for the wool
more cost effective three barb or similar
producing Merino.
designs.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 16

It was common practice for water to be 5.6. Pasture rest
reticulated from a flowing bore through open
There is considerable interest in pasture rest,
bore drains from the 1920s onwards.
but few graziers use it as a defined
However, the issue of high evaporation from
management tool. Historically, land holders
bore drains and a subsequent loss in
have practiced opportunistic rest, but
pressure, water flows and water levels in the
generally not as part of a strategy. A key
Great Artesian Basin was recognised by the
problem in implementing pasture rest is
1980s. Government schemes to phase out
uncontrolled grazing from kangaroos,
bore drains in preference for piping water to
especially in—or adjacent to—wooded land
tanks and troughs have been in place since
types.
the late 1980s. The altered water placement
has changed the pattern of grazing use from
linear piospheres (areas of grazing impact 5.7. Grazing system
around waters) to point piospheres. Rest has been incorporated through newer
Unfortunately, the replacement of bore drains grazing systems across northern Australia
has not included planning of the optimal since the mid 1990s. Several graziers within
placement of water for livestock access within western Queensland have implemented cell
paddocks. and holistic systems. Some have been
successful whilst others have not. Successful
5.5. Stocking rate management implementation incorporates: the flexibility to
adjust to highly variable rainfall and pasture
Stock numbers are generally adjusted as
supplies; matching stocking rates with the
feed becomes scarce. The lack of browse
inherent carrying capacity of the land; and
from trees or shrubs in Mitchell grass country
using pasture rest to ensure A to B land
means that the pasture is the only natural
condition across the property. These
source of fodder. The only options once the
principles are the same as for continuous
pasture starts to become limiting are
grazing. Research in Queensland has found
destocking, supplementary feeding or
that the extra training, knowledge and
substitution feeding.
observations of pastures and livestock when
changing to these more intensive systems
Breeding enterprises often have limited
are the recipes for success, rather than the
options compared with Merino wether or
actual grazing system itself (Hall et al 2011)
cattle backgrounding enterprises, which rely
on buying and selling rather than natural
increases and decreases. 5.8. Prescribed burning
There is very little interest in using fire as a
Total grazing pressure is an important management tool in the Mitchell grasslands.
consideration in the Mitchell grasslands, with Potential roles of fire include control of
many areas having large populations of thickening gidyea and boree on wooded land
kangaroos. Eastern grey kangaroo numbers types, control of encroaching gidyea and
have increased since the 1960s and wallaby boree into open land types, restoring B/C
numbers more recently, as water sources condition country dominated by feathertop
have become more reliable. Kangaroos are wiregrass to A condition, the removal of
now in high densities, especially in country moribund pasture to improve grazing, and as
that offers both shade and water, and a wildfire suppression and management tool.
comprise a significant proportion of the However, the problems with patch burning
grazing pressure on the landscape. Red attracting high grazing pressure from
kangaroos were present at the start of kangaroos with associated high risks of land
pastoralism—there is no firm evidence for an degradation, the high value placed on
increase in their numbers. Localised areas standing dry feed as a drought reserve and
have populations of wallabies, wallaroos and the historically bad experiences with wildfire
euros in high densities. Grazing pressure can (especially during the 1950s) discount the
be high in localised areas from feral goats potential benefits for most land holders.
and to a lesser extent from feral pigs.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 17

As a result, management of fire is basically  Established weeds such as prickly
limited to the suppression of wildfire during acacia, Parkinsonia and mesquite.
seasons of adequate fuel load.  Emerging weeds such as Parthenium
and sticky Florestina.
 Wildfires in late 2011—and a high risk for
5.9. Current issues and trends 2012—due to lightning storms and a lack
In 2012 the Mitchell grasslands face the of experience in managing pastures for
issues of: wildfire recovery.
 A loss of practical expertise and  Flood damage to pastures and a general
knowledge of natural resource lack of scientific knowledge of the
management through the exit of multi- potential impacts and post-flooding
generation land owners. management.
 A high proportion of cattle graziers with  Uncertain rainfall trends under climate
less than 10 years experience in change
managing Mitchell grass country.  Rehabilitation of D condition lands such
 Increasing pressures to repay debt— as scalded .areas and areas where
generally leading to increases in cattle prickly acacia has been removed.
numbers on individual properties.
 Increased total grazing pressure from Weed control and rehabilitation of D condition
kangaroos and feral animals. lands are not addressed in this guide.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 18

6. Best-bet management of the Mitchell grasslands

6.1. Matching pasture supply to

animal demand on land in
generally good condition
The amount of feed grown each year varies
When land is generally in good to fair widely due to high rainfall variability. The
condition (A to B), the main issue centres on appropriate number of animals to utilise the
managing feed supply to be profitable and to feed also varies widely. In theory, it would be
maintain good land condition. Whilst there is desirable to change animal numbers each
generally ample feed in good seasons and year so that the feed demand by animals
adequate feed in average seasons there is matches the feed supply from the pasture. In
usually inadequate feed in poor seasons. this way, overgrazing and subsequent
There may be a few overgrazed (C) condition pasture deterioration during periods when
patches that also require attention. The pasture growth is low is avoided, and animal
essential management actions are matching production increases in years with high
stocking rate to long term carrying capacity pasture growth. However, this is not simple
and using forage budgeting to adjust stocking as the feed supply is not known in advance,
rate to seasonal conditions. These should be and there are limits to how much animal
complemented by spelling and possible numbers can be altered particularly in a
prescribed burning. breeding enterprise. For instance, in a long-
term grazing experiment at Toorak Research
About 40% of the Mitchell grasslands are in A Station, Julia Creek, short term carrying
or B condition, based on surveys conducted capacity ranged from 0.2 up to 2.5 dse/ha 2 to
during 2005 and 2006. A major challenge achieve the desired safe 22% utilisation rate
facing managers is how to optimally use the based on feed supply (Figure 1). This
associated good feed production for animal represents large fluctuations in livestock
production, while at the same time numbers which are beyond the capacity of
maintaining land condition. High stocking land holders to implement.
rates increase pasture utilisation. In good
years this can increase animal production per
hectare, but in poor years high stocking rates
can give poor production per head and
degrade the pastures.

2
A dse is one dry sheep equivalent, or 0.11 of an adult
equivalent (AE)

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 19

 3500 yield 6
STCC
3000 5

Short term CC (dse/ha)

Total yield (kg/ha)

2500
4
2000
3
1500
2
1000

500 1

0 0
19 4
19 5
19 6
19 7
19 8
19 9
19 0
19 1
19 2
19 3
19 4
19 5
19 6
19 7
19 8
20 9
20 0
20 1
20 2
20 3
20 4
20 5
20 6
07
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19

Year
Figure 1. Large variations occur in short-term carrying capacity (STCC) when attempting to match
stock numbers with feed supply.

average rainfall following a series of below

6.1.1. Signs average seasons. High variability in pasture
The pastures in this scenario may have some growth is mainly linked to the high variability
overgrazed patches with low ground cover of rainfall in western Queensland but other
and some less desirable species but are factors such as humidity, cloud cover and soil
generally in A/B condition. However, any Nitrogen availability also drive pasture
overgrazing is likely to lead to the patches growth. Pasture growth rates can vary widely
increasing in size and frequency and if both between years and during years and is
continued for a longer period it is likely that the major cause of mismatches in feed supply
land condition will decline. and demand.

Feathertop (Aristida latifolia) can dominate 6.1.3. Management response: improve

some areas, especially following a series of stocking rate management
summers with above-average rainfall. This is supplemented by pasture spelling
generally in low B condition, as Mitchell grass Although changes in growing conditions are a
plants are usually still abundant. Mitchell major cause of mismatches between feed
grass growth is suppressed by up to 70% due supply and demand, they are largely outside
to the competition from feathertop, the control of managers and the most
discounting land condition down from A. If important management response is to adjust
Mitchell grass plants have thinned out stocking rate.
markedly and 3P yield is reduced then land
condition has declined to C. There are two broad approaches. The first
approach is to consistently stock at a
6.1.2. Causes relatively low level so that the level of pasture
Pasture yield changes faster than it is utilisation is not excessive in any year (or at
possible to adjust stock numbers in many least most years). This approach avoids
situations—especially in summers with above overgrazing in poorer years but forgoes the

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 20

extra animal production that could be (especially on poor condition land or in poor
achieved in better years and hence may incur seasons) can mean cattle will be subject to
a financial penalty. The second approach is weight-for-age penalties at market or
to adjust animal numbers so that animal increase supplement costs, both of which can
demand is less than or equal to current reduce profit. Conversely, consistent under-
and/or anticipated future feed supply. This stocking may reduce profitability.
should minimise periods of overgrazing and
feed deficit while making good use of feed in The safe pasture utilisation rate concept and
above-average years. This can result in historical rainfall and pasture growth data for
higher overall utilisation of feed but there is a different land types can be used to develop
risk of overgrazing if animal numbers are not an understanding of the long-term carrying
reduced quickly enough when pasture supply capacity of the land (see GLM workshop
is low. manual, Chilcott et al. 2002). Safe pasture
utilisation rates tend to be lower in less
Pasture resting—or spelling—can also be productive regions (e.g. lower annual rainfall,
used to alter the pasture supply and when it shorter growing season, less fertile soils) and
is consumed. In limited circumstances, fire where annual rainfall is more variable. A
may assist in changing grazing patterns to more conservative approach to setting
prevent patches increasing. Increased stocking rates is required in such regions.
kangaroo grazing pressure on burnt patches
and high rainfall variability are constraints to 6.1.4.1. Evidence
the use of fire for most of the region. There have been many experiments over
more than 70 years examining stocking rate
6.1.4. Management action: match or utilisation responses. Most of these have
stocking rate to long-term carrying been in Queensland (both east and west),
capacity with some in the NT and WA. As a general
A risk-averse approach has generally proven rule they show declines in pasture condition
to be a successful long-term approach to as annual utilisation rates exceed
managing stocking rates in western approximately 30%. Expert knowledge has
Queensland. Stocking at close to the long- been used to develop recommended safe
term carrying capacity (equal to or less than utilisation rates for land types in northern
22% average annual pasture utilisation Australia.
depending on land type) of the land in most
years is generally the most profitable in the Looking further abroad, there is a large body
medium to long term and the least risky of international and Australian literature
(economically and ecologically) approach to showing that animal production per head
managing stocking rates. The focus should declines linearly as stocking rate increases
be on maximising profit per hectare in the and animals compete with each other for
long term. Maximising production per hectare quality feed (Figure 2a; Jones and Sandland
is not necessarily the way to maximise profit. 1974). Production per hectare increases
initially, as the lost production per animal is
High stocking rates in excess of the long-term compensated by the higher number of
carrying capacity (e.g. annual pasture animals. A per hectare ceiling is always
utilisation rates greater than 22% for the more reached, however, as animals become
productive land types) may be more profitable weakened and are unable to grow adequately
in the short term but are less profitable over and/or mortality rates increase. Live-weight
the longer term because of the effect of gain per hectare is generally maximised
drought years and declines in land condition beyond the point at which profits are
and productivity. Maintaining high stocking maximised. A further implication of this is that
rates during drought risks causing marked declining livestock condition and/or declining
land degradation that can reduce production per hectare production may be poor
for years after, or increase subsequent yearly indicators of profitability (Figure 2b).
variability in production. High stocking rates

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 21

Figure 2. (a) The Jones-Sandland model relating livestock performance to stocking rate. (b) the
relationship between stocking rate and economic performance based on the Jones-Sandland
model (from Ash and Stafford Smith 1996).

Ash and Stafford Smith (1996) have condition from A/B to C within six years (D.
demonstrated that animal production in Jackson pers comm). A moderate stocking
rangelands is less sensitive due to the much rate of 1 AE to 10 ha (25 acres) maintained
greater spatial and temporal variability of land condition and steer production. Further
rangelands. It is also likely that the optimal work is needed to estimate the utilisation
stocking rate varies with above and below- rates imposed in this trial using the GRASP
average rainfall in the rangelands. model.

The Wambiana grazing experiment at Sheep grazing over 25 years at Toorak

Charters Towers (O’Reagain et al. 2009; research Station, Julia Creek, was sustained
2011) showed that over a 13 year period, at a moderate grazing pressure (an estimated
constant moderate stocking (approximately 22% average annual utilisation) with no
25% utilisation) gave better financial returns reduction in land condition. Heavier grazing
and pasture condition than constant heavy pressure (in the order of 35–45% average
stocking (approximately 50% utilisation). annual utilisation) led to patch-degradation
Heavy stocking gave very good returns after 20 years of continuous grazing. In
during years of above average rainfall but this contrast, very heavy grazing pressure (in
was offset by high costs of drought feeding excess of 65% average annual utilisation)
during poor seasons. Heavy set stocking also coupled with full wet season spelling and
led to poor pasture condition. The drought de-stocking allowed for recovery from
accumulated gross margin under heavy reduced land condition (Orr and Phelps
stocking rates was consistently worse than 2004). This suggests it may be possible to
moderate stocking or flexible stocking couple regular pasture spelling with higher
approaches once land condition declined grazing pressure without adverse effects.
(Figure 3). This concept requires testing before it could
be recommended as a management
The steer stocking rate trial at Rosebank approach.
Research Station, Longreach, demonstrated
that high stocking rates could drive land

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 22

 $21 000 1400

$18 000 1200

AGM ($/100 ha)

$15 000 1000

Rainfall (mm)
$12 000 800

$9 000 600

$6 000 400

$3 000 200

$0 0
97

98

99

00

'0 1

'0 2

'0 3

'0 4

'0 5

'0 6

'0 7

'0 8

'0 9

'1 0
/9 8

/9 9

/0 0

/0 1

/0 2

/0 3

/0 4

/0 5

/0 6

/0 7

/0 8

/0 9

/1 0

/1 1
Var R/Spell SOI HSR MSR

Figure 3. Accumulated gross margin (AGM)

for five grazing strategies from 1997–98 to
2009–10 (assuming an interest rate of 7.5 %
on livestock capital) 3 . From O’Reagain et al.
2011

These observations are supported by the utilisation rates. Production indices that
results of the Mt Sanford and Pigeon Hole performed better at lower utilisation rates
trials in the Victoria River District (VRD) of the included breeder weight, inter-calving interval
NT. Despite declines in individual animal and kilograms of weaner produced per unit
performance at Mt Sanford, earnings before area (Hunt et al. 2010). Thus, breeder herds
interest and tax (EBIT) per unit area were in the VRD can maintain high weaning rates
higher in the high utilisation rate paddocks at high utilisation rates provided seasonal
due to increased turnoff (Hunt et al. 2010). conditions are favourable. However, once
This was a direct result of a run of above- seasonal conditions deteriorate, breeders
average rainfall years. Production results may be unable to maintain calf output,
after the one poor wet season of the trial resulting in lower weaning rates.
(2002/3) indicate that the higher utilisation
rates were not environmentally or In the Pigeon Hole trial, there was a 14%
economically sustainable. Weaning decline in individual animal production with a
percentage declined at higher utilisation rates doubling of utilisation rate (Hunt et al. 2010).
after the poor wet season and took two years Like at Mt Sanford, however, the decline in
to recover (Hunt et al. 2010). Production was per head production was offset by increased
also more variable through time at higher per hectare production (and thus profit) at
higher stocking rates. Inter-calving interval,
steer live-weight gain, branding rate and
weaning rate were not correlated with
3
Where: R/Spell is rotational wet season spelling utilisation rate. Only weaner weight (which
coupled with moderate-heavy stocking; HSR is heavy directly influences weight weaned per
stocking at twice the long-term carrying capacity hectare) responded to utilisation rate at
(LTCC) of the site; MSR is moderate stocking at the Pigeon Hole (Hunt et al. 2010). At a utilisation
LTCC; VAR is variable stocking with stocking rates rate of 13%, the proportion of cows pregnant
adjusted annually in May based on forage availability; and lactating was slightly higher, and calf
and SOI is a variable strategy with stocking rates losses were lower than at higher utilisation
adjusted annually in November according to forage rates. So, whilst there appeared to be little
availability and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI).

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 23

production penalty in implementing higher 6.1.4.2. Implementation
stocking rates over the relatively good While the concept of setting long-term
seasons experienced during the trial, the carrying capacities using appropriate
lower weaner weights may have a hidden utilisation rates for each land type is sound,
cost in that turn-off times for steers may be its application is complex, requiring
longer and heifers may take longer to reach knowledge of average pasture growth rates
joining weight. Furthermore, the negative for different land types on a property and their
impacts on land condition described above safe utilisation rates. Most land managers
would be expected to have negative don’t have ready access to either the
production impacts over the longer term— information or concepts and systems unless
particularly during poorer seasons. In the they attend an EDGEnetwork Grazing Land
Pigeon Hole trial, stocking rates were Management (GLM) or Stocktake workshop.
adjusted to reflect the forage supply in May
each year. This annual adjustment of Long term carrying capacity can be estimated
stocking rate to track forage supply is likely to across land types within paddocks using the
have dampened the impacts of higher GLM EDGEnetwork approach (Chilcott et al.
utilisation rates on animal performance 2002). Land type and location specific
compared to a set-stocked regime at similar pasture growth tables are coupled with
stocking rates (R. Cowley pers. comm.). estimates of land type area, safe utilisation
rates, tree basal area and land condition. This
The VRD results support the findings of the requires paddock scale mapping, descriptions
Wambiana trial in Queensland (O’Reagain et of land types, and estimates of land condition
al. 2009; 2011) where over a 13 year period, and tree basal area. GLM workshops offer
constant moderate stocking (average 25% the training required to use this approach.
utilisation) gave better financial returns and
pasture condition than constant heavy Livestock numbers are adjusted around the
stocking (average 50% utilisation). The latter long term carrying capacity as rainfall and
gave good returns during the early years of pasture growth vary, to approximate the safe
the trial, which experienced average to utilisation rate.
above-average pasture growth but not during
subsequent poor seasons when returns were Long term carrying capacity is a useful tool at
very poor. Heavy stocking also led to poor the property scale in western Queensland.
pasture condition and an ongoing penalty to Used since the mid 1990s in delivering safe
production—especially in years of limited soil carrying capacity estimates (Johnston et al.
moisture. 1996) through property advisory visits and
GLM workshop planning sessions, over 500
The long term grazing study at Toorak gave properties have long term carrying capacities.
similar sheep performance and economic These are estimated by coupling property
results with to the cattle results in the NT and rainfall with mapped land type areas to
at Wambiana. Wool production per ha was calculate pasture growth within paddocks.
initially better under higher stocking rates The safe utilisation rate of the land types is
despite lower wool cuts per head—simply then used to benchmark the average carrying
because of the higher sheep numbers. Once capacity in the long term at the paddock and
land condition began to decline under higher property scale. The range of computer
grazing pressure and high sheep numbers mapping programs now available makes
could no longer be sustained, wool these calculations simpler for any land holder
production per ha and economic returns also to achieve.
declined. Preliminary economic analysis
suggests that moderate grazing pressure The benchmarked long term carrying capacity
(approximately 22% utilisation) achieved the is a useful figure to adjust stock numbers up
highest returns. in above average and down in below average
seasons. Forage budgeting should be used to

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 24

adjust stock numbers around the long term estimate of annual pasture intakes by the
carrying capacity. classes of stock grazing each paddock.

The technique provided in the GLM and The Stocktake database shortcuts these
Stocktake workshops offer an objective manual calculations to some extent and will
assessment that is repeatable, uses local calculate current and potential carrying
climate information and can account for capacities of land types and paddocks once
changing conditions such as declining land information on land condition and tree
condition and woodland thickening. The densities is entered.
comparative outputs of these assessments
can then assist in determining the profitability An important consideration is to allow for
of a range of management strategies to grazing pressure from feral and native
improve the situation. herbivores that may be present when setting
stocking rates. Kangaroos and wallabies can
The first thing to do is to check land condition consume a high proportion of pasture on offer
and tree densities of the different land types when present in large numbers, so they need
in each to be taken into account or numbers
paddock. Use the Stocktake and GLM managed. On average, 14 kangaroos will eat
approach of checking the presence or as much pasture on a daily basis as a 450 kg
absence of 3P grasses and their health, steer or dry cow.
presence of weeds, any signs of erosion or
abnormal hard setting soil surfaces and Also discount the stocking rate according to
measuring the basal area of existing woody the area of a paddock that is not accessible
vegetation. If the land condition is good then from water. This will include areas too steep
historical stocking rates and management or rocky for stock to access or areas more
have been sustainable and can be than 3 km from water.
maintained.
If there appears to be a decline in land Monitor pastures and woodlands so any
condition to B, then reassess carrying resulting changes in pasture growth can be
capacities using GLM or Stocktake accounted for.
techniques. Compare the outcomes with
current stocking rates and adjust stock 6.1.4.3. Considerations/caveats
numbers if necessary. The long term carrying capacity is not an
upper or lower limit and is rarely the actual
Where there are contrasting land types in a stocking rate desired to achieve sustainable
paddock and grazing is concentrated more on productivity. It requires active management to
one land type than another, fencing out the achieve. Consistently stocking at the long
overgrazed land type should be considered term carrying capacity results in reduced land
as an option for avoiding further declines in condition as it is too high under drought
land condition. Using the safe carrying conditions.
capacity technique described above can
show the benefits to production but these Long term carrying capacity estimates allow
results should then be tested in a suitable for a modest level of grazing by kangaroos,
economic package such as ‘Breedcow goats and other animals that are not readily
Dynama’ or ‘Testing Management Options’. managed.

The safe CC calculations given in the GLM Early safe carrying capacity estimates
workshop can provide an objective conduced within western Queensland did not
assessment of carrying capacities to consider account for inaccessible areas within
in conjunction with local recommendations. paddocks due to long distances from water
These calculations require pasture growth points.
data for each of the land types on the
property, their safe utilisation rates and an

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 25

Implementation of stocking rates in the long Total grazing pressure in—or adjacent to—
term grazing study at Toorak has shown that wooded land types preferred by kangaroos
large annual variations in numbers can be may impact on the safe utilisation level and is
required even at very low grazing pressure difficult to account for in the long-term.
(10% pasture use). Large reductions in sheep
numbers—in excess of two fold—were Inaccessible areas within paddocks, such as
necessary in the dry years of 1985, 1988, the top of steep-sided jump-ups, should be
1992, 1998 and 2003 (Figure 4). Large discounted as should areas distant (>3 km)
increases were necessary in 1987, 1991 and from water. The current water distance
1999. High adjustments to numbers can be discount factors are derived from studies in
difficult to achieve in practice due to the NT and could be improved through further
limitations on transport, market constraints studies in Queensland.
and availability of livestock.

80
sheep number within 54 ha paddock

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
93

05
06
07
08
09
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19

year

Figure 4. Annual variation in sheep numbers between 1984 and 2009 under a very low grazing
pressure to consume 10% of standing feed at Toorak research station.

Local recommendations can vary according The carrying capacities derived using the
to the individual’s property circumstances and safe carrying capacity calculators in GLM and
these circumstances need to be defined and Stocktake are a guide only but their relative
taken into consideration when settling on a differences due to changes in land condition
new stocking rate or carrying capacity. or tree density are important when making
decisions.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 26

 livestock numbers according to pasture
6.1.5. Management action: use forage response.
budgeting to adjust stocking rate to
seasonal conditions Stocking rates may be increased above the
There is strong interest from graziers in the long-term carrying capacity in good seasons
Mitchell grasslands in adopting more flexible to take advantage of above average pasture
approaches to adjust stocking rates using growth with lower risk of harming the pasture,
forage budgeting. Forage budgeting can be but prompt action is required to reduce
used to take advantage of above-average stocking rates as pasture availability and
season when there is more feed on offer, to seasonal conditions decline. It is usually the
plan stock number reductions in below- combination of high stocking rates during
average seasons as feed declines and to periods of low rainfall and pasture availability
plan for pasture spelling. Given these that result in major declines in land condition
different purposes it is important to have that can persist for years and, perhaps,
goals in mind when preparing a forage decades. It is wise to set an upper stocking
budget. Forage budgeting is the most rate limit even for very good seasons to avoid
accurate way to adjust stock numbers around the risk of excessive pasture utilisation rates
the benchmark long term carrying capacity. if subsequent conditions are poor. This upper
limit may need to be specific to land types of
Forage budgeting provides an accurate the Mitchell grasslands and could be based
means to adjust stock numbers when used on an upper limit of about 30% higher than
with skill and with knowledge of the technique the property long-term carrying capacity,
and the land being managed. The skills depending on the extra pasture growth in
involved generally build on those used—often better years. Increases in individual paddock
intuitively—by experienced graziers to set may be higher for shorter grazing periods and
stock numbers for a paddock. There are still be safe. Changing stock numbers in this
indications that it is important to reduce stock way may not actually change annual pasture
numbers quickly as pasture yields decline utilisation rates in better years but keep the
and re-build numbers slowly to allow pastures utilisation rate fairly constant.
to recover as yield increases.

A forage budget should account for

detachment and unpalatable feed. It should
leave adequate residual to protect the soil
from erosion or provide carry over feed ready
for the next grazing cycle or in the event of
drought.

This is shown pictorially on the right.

Note that a forage budget is calculated using

pasture weight, not height. For Mitchell grass
in good condition, a residual of 15-20 cm is
1000-1500 kg/ha (dry weight). The local recommendation from consultation
with experienced graziers is to use feed
Graziers have expressed a desire to budgeting along with available climate
maximise liveweight gains by grazing over outlooks and tools e.g., to set dates for selling
the summer growing season. This tactical stock if no useful rain is received by that time.
approach has a high degree of risk. This risk Useful climate tools include the SOI, Madden-
may be tempered with appropriate Julian Oscillation (MJO), historical records
managerial inputs to monitor and adjust (for analogue years), as well as some wildlife

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 27

indicators like behaviour of emus and meat The more information available on markets,
ants. Whilst more accurate forecasts/outlooks feed quality and quantity (both at the time and
would be welcomed, graziers see the current over the following 6 months), the better it is
tools are being helpful to inform stocking for making decisions.
decisions. Some good insights to the
reliability of ENSO as a rainfall and pasture 6.1.5.1. Evidence
growth predictive tool are given in Clewett A number of trials have been conducted over
and Clarkson (2007). the past 30 years examining the effects of
utilisation rate on pasture performance
Experienced graziers suggest that April is a [Ecograze (spear grass), Toorak (Mitchell
critical time to reduce stock numbers, grass, Burenda (Mitchell grass), Arabella
especially in poor years of below average (mulga)]. While the method of determining
pasture growth where the decision to sell or utilisation rate varied between studies
commence targeted feeding is crucial. (consumption of a percentage of pasture
Stocking rates should be reduced quickly in grown during that year for Ecograze versus
poor years, especially during poor wet consumption of a proportion of the end of
seasons because of the sensitivity of growing season yield over the following year
perennial grasses to grazing at this time. for other studies), these trials showed
Plans for a progressive reduction in stocking declines in both animal production per head
rates during deteriorating seasonal conditions and pasture condition as utilisation rate
should be developed to avoid crisis increases.
management. Livestock classes should be
considered when destocking, selling the least Wambiana is the only trial to experimentally
productive animals first. This may include test using variable stocking rates where
splitting breeders based on age and feed animal numbers were changed each year at
demand. Having ‘core’ breeder and ‘trading’ the end of the growing season. The variable
dry animals in the herd provides the flexibility stocking regime gave good financial returns
to adjust to changing seasonal conditions, overall but had problems (both financial and
although the optimal long-term mix of declining land condition) in the transition from
breeders to trading livestock is difficult to good to poor years.
determine.
Cattle grazing experiments at Longreach and
Having country in good condition provides Blackall commenced grazing in March, or at
opportunities to buy in. Experienced graziers phase 3 pasture growth, without impacting on
suggest that when to buy in depends on the Mitchell grass even under high stocking rates
timing of rainfall, amount of feed, quality of (Phelps 2006).
the feed and how feed quality may change in
the coming months. Increasing numbers in Bio-economic modelling for the open downs
April/May has the advantage of knowing the land type suggests that perennial grasses
amount of forage on offer, but includes the can be retained—and hence land condition
risk of a rapid loss of pasture quality due to maintained—by using flexible (or variable)
spoiling rains or—to the south—frosts. stocking rates ranging from 6.7 ha/AE to
Increasing numbers during winter is seen as 14.4 ha/AE (Figure 5). This supports the
a gamble as feed quality is already in decline. interest in using flexible management
Buying in August/September may overcome approaches. The modelling also suggests
these risks as the stage of decline of feed that perennial grasses decline over time
quality is generally evident by then. Cattle under too high a stocking rate—regardless of
prices are generally low in stocking rate strategy or spelling. This
August/September, providing an added threshold is yet to be defined for the Mitchell
market advantage. There is a risk of having grasslands but presumably it exceeds
too high a stocking rate going into the early 6.7 ha/AE.
wet season. This needs to be managed
through feed budgeting.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 28

 100

90

80

70
%perennials

60
14.4 ha/AE
10 ha/AE
50
8.3 ha/AE
6.7 ha/AE
40

30

20

10

0
Fixed stocking rate Current variable Highly flexible stocking
stocking rate rate

Figure 5. The estimated % of perennial grasses present in the long term under fixed, current or
highly flexible approaches to stocking rates.

Bio-economic modelling also suggests that out of 30 years (Figure 6) but did return the
stocking rate strategies can become too highest GM in a single year (Table 6). The
flexible. The highly flexible stocking rate had highly flexible option provided the same
greater economic risk than fixed (i.e. not average GM as the fixed stocking strategy,
adjusting stocking rates) or the (assumed) but with much higher risk as shown by 10
current level of variation on stock numbers. years running at a loss and a substantial loss
The highly flexible stocking rate approach of $15.27/ha in the worst year.
returned a negative gross margin (GM) in 10

$50.00
Fixed stocking rate
Current variable stocking rate
$40.00 Highly flexible stocking rate

$30.00
GM/Ha ($)

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

-$10.00

-$20.00
Year

Figure 6. Gross margin ($/ha) analysis of fixed, current or highly flexible stocking rate approaches
to stocking rate between 1981 and 2006.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 29

Table 6. Key gross margin ($/ha) results from an analysis of fixed, current or highly flexible
stocking rate approaches to stocking rate between 1981 and 2006.
Stocking rate strategy
Fixed Current variable Highly flexible
Average GM $10.25 $9.12 $10.66
Minimum GM $3.32 -$2.27 -$15.27
Maximum GM $16.11 $21.53 $46.39
Negative income years 0 3 10

reduce stock numbers if the response is

6.1.5.2. Implementation poor compared to the rain received.
Forage budgeting can be used at the end of  Monitoring changes in pasture yield and
the wet season to set stock numbers for the Mitchell grass stubble height—especially
coming 12 months or to set numbers for when seasonal conditions change—to
shorter grazing periods (often 90-120 days quickly reduce numbers should yield
but up to 210 days). Annual adjustments are decline faster than anticipated or to
more common for breeders whilst shorter gradually take advantage of improved
term adjustments are useful for younger or pasture growth.
trade stock. Shorter grazing periods would  Monitoring changes in forage quality (e.g.
generally be recommended to start no sooner due to unseasonal winter rain, mist or
than the mid to late wet season once the frost that can quickly reduce forage
majority of the Mitchell grass in the paddock quality; or as stem in the cattle diet
has gone to seed. Both approaches can also increases towards the end of the forage
be used to lease country or negotiate budget period).
agistment terms.  Anticipating changes in pasture yield
based on short to medium-term rainfall
Graziers in some areas (e.g. Tambo) suggest predictions—there may be opportunities
it is better to commence shorter grazing to increase stock numbers further, to
periods towards the end of the dry season to increase live-weight faster, or to aim for a
reduce the risk of poor forage quality due to larger residual yield.
frost or spoiling rains. This approach starts  Allowing the majority of Mitchell grass in
from low forage quality and improves over the a paddock to start to set seed (i.e. within
wet season but involves the risk of over- late phase 3 growth) before increasing
grazing Mitchell grass in its sensitive early stock numbers (usually by mid-March).
growth phases (phase 1 and 2).
Cattle production can decline towards the end
Successful forage budgeting in the Mitchell of shorter forage budget periods. This may be
grasslands involves: a sign that cattle have increased the intake of
 Accurately estimating pasture yields grass stem or other less-palatable pasture
using photo-guides (e.g. from Stocktake) components. This is an indication that stock
or other means (e.g. cutting pasture numbers are too high—even if the residual
samples). yield or stubble height have not been
 Setting end-of-grazing period residual reached. From a production perspective it is
pasture yield (generally 1000– useful to anticipate the need for
1500 kg/ha) and Mitchell grass stubble supplementary feeding as pasture quality
height (generally >20 cm) targets declines. From a pasture perspective it is a
appropriate to the management goal and sign to provide some relief to the paddock
seasonal conditions. through either spelling or reduced stock
 Closely monitoring declining pasture numbers. It is also a sign that future yield
yield as the grazing period and/or target estimates should be more conservative.
residual yield is approached.
 Closely monitoring pasture response in
the early wet season and be ready to

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 30

Shorter grazing periods (generally 90, 120– detachment rate increases suddenly beyond
150 or 180–210 days) with agisted or trade an upper threshold of stock density.
cattle are useful approaches to make use of
feed surplus to the requirements of the core There are economic penalties for trying to
herd. Shorter grazing periods are also an introduce too much change in animal
essential element when planning wet season numbers. The risk of land degradation is
pasture rest periods. Shorter gazing periods higher when grazing over summer, closer
may commence as early as mid-March but monitoring and more active management is
possibly much later depending on the needed to prevent this from happening.
seasonal and market conditions.
Stocking rate decisions should be based on
Feed budgeting approaches in the Mitchell an assessment of current land condition. This
grasslands need to include drought should consider patterns of grazing
management strategies. Stocking rates distribution within paddocks. Where they
should be reduced in poor years especially have been developed, use plant and soil
during failed wet seasons (because of the indicators to inform decisions about the need
sensitivity of perennial grasses to grazing at to reduce stocking rates to avoid land
this time). Plans for a progressive reduction in degradation as pasture availability and
stocking rates during deteriorating seasonal seasonal conditions decline. The condition of
conditions should be developed to avoid perennial grass tussocks (such as the
crisis management. Re-stocking should also amount of residual biomass or stubble height)
be progressive—and slower than the de- are important indicators of future plant
stocking—to allow drought stressed pastures survival and pasture productivity. Reducing
to recover. stocking rates late in the wet season may
allow seed production by palatable perennial
Consider your drought strategy when setting grasses. Maintaining minimum levels of
a residual yield: 1200 kg/ha may be ground cover is important to protecting the
inadequate in the event of a failed summer. soil.
During a run of below average wet seasons,
the starting yield may be lower than the Good growing seasons with an ample supply
recommended residual yield. In these of feed may be an opportunity to rest
seasons, graze cautiously with low stocking pastures to maintain condition and/or to use
rates. Attempt to retain Mitchell grass stubble fire to manage woody plant populations (see
height in excess of 10 cm and be prepared to Section 6.3). Mitchell grass plants grazed to
use pasture rest as a tool to aid Mitchell less than 10 cm stubble height in the mid-dry
grass and general pasture recovery at the season and then rested for the entire wet
end of the drought. season, survived severe drought better than
plants of greater stubble height. However,
Adjust stocking rates at least twice a year as grazing below 10 cm stubble height during
necessary (at the start and end of the dry the growing season leads to high Mitchell
season). Where it is feasible, reduce stocking grass mortality (up to 75% or plants and
rates during the wet season if rains are poor segments of plants).
to help protect pasture condition.
It is worth bearing in mind that the length of a
6.1.5.3. Considerations/caveats short-term feed budget can vary by about 4–8
High cattle density increases detachment weeks depending on seasonal conditions and
rates considerably in Mitchell grasslands, how accurately the starting yield was
risking over-estimates of potential stock estimated.
numbers. It is known that detachment rates
can be as high as 50% under high stock There is some evidence that Mitchell grass
density but it is not clearly understood at what dieback during the 2002-2009 ‘Millennium’
density this occurs. It seems that the drought may have been made worse by
retaining very old and weathered stubble (>2

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 31

years old). Effective options for drought play in maintaining and restoring pasture
management are elusive but should be based condition (see Section 6.2).
on the same principles of good land
management as in good seasons. It is difficult 6.1.6.1. Evidence
to maintain stubble or yield above the While there has been considerable research
minimum targets during drought as the on using pasture resting to improve land
starting yield and height are often below the condition, there has been little study of the
desired minimum for the end of the grazing effects of pasture resting on land in good
period. Practical implementation under these condition. One of the few studies was the
circumstances may include reducing the Ecograze project at Charters Towers where
targets, accepting potential land condition resting paddocks in the early growing season
impacts and plan to accelerate drought each year for eight weeks combined with
recovery by retaining low stocking rates and 50% utilisation gave similar pasture
implementing full wet season spelling. performance to 25% utilisation without
pasture rest. Both these treatments
During severe or extended drought events maintained land in good condition.
even country in good condition becomes
unproductive and at risk of degradation. A to Pasture resting during the early growing
B condition country is often dominated by season avoids the grazing of regrowing
tussocks which lack vigour instead of the perennial grasses when they are most
usual healthy and robust plants. Often there sensitive to defoliation. By allowing patches
are just one or two stalks (tillers) growing to grow without continual re-grazing, they
from a mostly dead tussock. Mitchell grass become more like the remainder of the
plants can remain alive for an estimated 630 pasture and animals are less likely to return
days under drought, but this extra stress to these patches.
makes them more vulnerable to grazing
impacts. Under these circumstances A general conclusion from South African
management for recovery is probably similar studies was that pastures in good condition
for managing for C condition recovery (see should be rested one year in four (and more
next section). often for pastures in poor condition).

The drought experienced from 2002 until the 6.1.6.2. Implementation

2008/09 summer lead to the loss of Mitchell Where the aim is to grow more feed then
grass even under conservative grazing and in spelling pastures will need to be during the
ungrazed areas due to its severity. The key growing season and after sufficient rainfall to
factor was below average rainfall coupled promote enough growth of pasture to transfer
with high evaporation—such as experienced energy and nutrients back to the depleted
in western Queensland over the 2002/03 root system but if the aim is to reduce
summer. It is possible that these conditions consumption then this can be any time during
dry out the soil for the full rooting depth of the year.
Mitchell grass (generally >1 m) and prevent
access to deeper moisture that keeps the From a practical perspective, the spell period
grass alive during drought dormancy (Phelps to improve land condition should commence
et al. 2007). at the beginning of the growing season for
long enough to allow the Mitchell grass to
6.1.6. Management action: implement reach phase 3 (seed set). By this stage there
pasture resting should have been sufficient transfer of
Resting pastures can both increase the nutrients to the plant roots for recovery
amount of pasture grown and reduce the providing there has been enough rain, as
amount consumed. This can increase the discussed earlier. It is also important to allow
total feed supply or defer when it is 3P grasses to set seed in most years.
consumed. Pasture resting also has a role to

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 32

6.1.6.3. Considerations/caveats 6.1.7. Management action: implement
Although the aim of spelling in this case is prescribed burning
concerned with the amount of feed available Fire can be a useful tool to control the
for animals, it is logical to assume that invasion of gidyea (see Section 6.3.4) and to
spelling should give additional benefits in reduce feathertop (Aristida latifolia) and
terms of maintaining or improving land hence improve land condition (Phelps 2006).
condition. However, there is little evidence of
these benefits for the Mitchell grasslands.
Based on Bio-economic modelling, good land
condition is maintained provided stocking rate
is matched with long term carrying capacity in
the medium to long term.

Results from grazing studies (Phelps 2006)

indicate that spelling is needed to allow
Mitchell grass to recover following high
grazing pressure (Mitchell grass plants
grazed to less than 10 cm stubble height).
There may also be gains in deferring grazing An effective management fire burning
until late phase 3 growth following shorter- feathertop.
term grazing periods where residual pasture
yields have been reached. 6.1.7.1. Evidence
Feathertop is an unpalatable wiregrass
Resting country for a full wet season following (Aristida spp.) with a high proportion of tough
drought should allow for maximum recovery, stems and is a poor quality feed (Phelps
although there is only anecdotal evidence to 2006). Patches of unpalatable feathertop in
support this. The same recovery may be the pasture forces the animals to more
achieved by maintaining low stocking rates, heavily graze palatable pastures, in turn
and hence low utilisation rates. creating degraded patches where the
palatable pasture was. Pastures dominated
Kangaroos and wallabies are a major by feathertop have reduced overall grazing
problem in many parts of the Mitchell value as the palatable feed is suppressed;
grasslands. Spelled pastures are often over- they can also be substantially lower yielding
grazed by very high densities of roos and than the same land type in better condition.
wallabies and land condition suffers as a Animal productivity is consistently reported as
consequence and landholders are invariably low within wiregrass dominated pastures.
discouraged from spelling pastures. There Feathertop can suppress Mitchell grass yield
are control techniques, some involving by up to 70%—even when Mitchell grass
elaborate technology, or simply culling. density is still moderate (a spacing of 2–3 m
Culling is often unsuccessful due to the high between plants). The moderate density of
numbers of roos and wallabies involved and Mitchell grass indicates B land condition—
other options such as roo-proof fencing and despite the low contribution to yield—as it still
high-tech options are expensive. The has the capacity to respond to rainfall.
economics of fencing and high-tech options
have not been rigorously tested to date, or 6.1.7.2. Implementation
little information exists, but there are some A single mid-dry season burn (June/July in
demonstrations in the region employing these most instances) when soils are dry and dry
techniques. conditions are maintained for six to eight
weeks following the burn will reduce
feathertop and return country to productive A
condition. Up to 75% of existing adult
feathertop will be killed as will seed on the
soil surface and the next season’s potential

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 33

seed crop. A minimum of 1,500-2,000 kg/ha
of fuel is needed to produce a clean and
effective management burn.

6.1.7.3. Considerations/caveats
Graziers within the Mitchell grasslands will long-term opportunity cost through foregone
generally not contemplate fire as a grazing potential.
management option, even for feathertop
control. There are no other control options, Some areas burnt in the lead up to the 2002-
although severe drought reduces feathertop 2009 drought responded better to rainfall
and cattle grazing can slow its increase. It is events during the drought and helped
thus possible that the conversion from sheep maintain land condition. The mechanisms
to cattle grazing will lead to less feathertop. involved are unclear but is probably because
all the old tillers were replaced with fresh
Patchy burns—with remnant areas of intact tillers better able to withstand drought.
feathertop left behind—allow for rapid re-
seeding and the potential for populations to
quickly re-establish. Feathertop is able to
recover rapidly from a single burning event if
25 mm or more of rain is received within 6–8
weeks of burning. End of wet season burning
can be detrimental to Mitchell grass given the
length of time (up to 10 months) before rain is
normally received.

A patchy burn leaves intact feathertop plants

ready to recover with rain.

Burning includes a short-term opportunity

cost through the reduction in available forage
that could otherwise be grazed. The reduction
in available forage also increases the
exposure to drought risk, should the following
summer receive well below average rains.
Preparing a feed budget plan for the property
can identify if the opportunity cost is real, and
reduce the risk of running short of feed during
drought. Only burning when the SOI, or other
indicators of rainfall, shows a high probability
of summer rain will also reduce this risk.
Allowing feathertop to persist represents a

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 34

6.2. Pasture in poor (C) condition
When land is generally in poor condition there The previous section (6.1) referred to
is low density and vigour of 3P grasses, low situations where paddocks are in good to fair
ground cover, undesirable pasture species, (A or B) condition overall. In this section we
frequent feed shortages and obvious are dealing with the estimated 53% of
overgrazed patches. Land condition needs to Mitchell grasslands in generally poor (C)
be restored to restore productivity and condition (Phelps et al. 2007) e.g. rapid
profitability. The essential management assessment of land condition in 2006
actions are reducing stocking rate to match estimated that about 50% of Mitchell grass
the less productive carrying capacity, wet land types were in C condition in the north-
season spelling and using forage budgeting west and central-west statistical divisions
to adjust stocking rate to seasonal conditions. (Figure 7).

60%
Proportion of observations (%)

50%

40%

A Condition
B condition
30% C condition
D condition

20%

10%

0%
North-west Central-west
Statistical division
Figure 7. Proportion of A, B, C or D condition classes in 2006 within the north and central-western
amalgamated shire divisions (Phelps et al. 2007).

Land in C condition has about half the gross eroding the capital base (Table 7; Figure 8).
margin (GM) of production as country in B A negative economic profit means the return
condition and is generally unprofitable in the on labour, land, and capital is lower than
long term. If a property were to decline from B other forms of investment—in this case ten-
to C condition over a five year period, the year government bonds. The economic
enterprise becomes unprofitable with impact would become worse over the long
negative operating, net and economic profit 4 term unless country is restored to B or A land
condition. Potentially the longer that land
remains in C condition the more difficult it is
4 to recover to B (or A) condition as the amount
Where: GM is total farm income minus variable costs;
of seed of 3P grasses and other desirable
operating profit is the difference between total farm
plant species in the soil declines over time.
income and farm operating costs (variable + fixed
This has not been tested and could warrant
costs); net profit is operating profit minus depreciation,
further research.
bank interest, family labour and tax; economic profit is
operating profit minus the change in market value of
farm capital, and the opportunity costs of farm labour,
land and capital; balance sheet includes assets,
liabilities, and owners equity.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 35

Table 7. Detailed whole gross margin (GM, $), profit, cash flow and balance sheet analysis
for a representative northern Australian cattle property with Mitchell grass pastures, with
land condition declining from B to C in year 2 (Phelps et al. 2007)
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5
Land Condition (class) B B C C C C
Carrying capacity (AE) 3231 3231 3232 1711 1711 1711
Closing no. 3231 3232 1711 1711 1711 1711
Activity gross margin ($) $434,043 $388,353 $1,419,003 $166,387 $157,503 $148,905

Profit ($)
Operating profit $253,840 $196,985 $1,053,587 $2,494 -$7,259 -$15,943
Net profit $100,032 $63,151 $665,570 -$96,447 -$102,525 -$105,685
Change in trading stock $363 -$213,017 -$1,107,059 -$60,077 -$41,249 -$39,530
Economic profit -$94,560 -$316,825 -$488,798 -$282,570 -$256,113 -$242,485

Cash Flow ($)

net change in cash $133,271 $94,807 $695,719 -$67,734 -$75,180 -$79,642

Balance sheet ($)

Total assets $4,371,327 $4,191,379 $3,784,872 $3,579,907 $3,380,993 $3,173,526
Total liabilities $472,229 $472,229 $472,229 $472,229 $472,229 $472,229
Owners equity $3,899,098 $3,719,150 $3,312,643 $3,107,678 $2,908,764 $2,701,297

In this example, there is an initial income situation occurs at the on-set of drought. The
spike when cattle are forcibly sold due to risk of sliding into C condition is also greater
declining pasture yields and the inability to during drought—especially severe drought—
carry high numbers for any longer. A similar than at any other time.

1600000 no change
B declines to C
Income 'spike' due to
forced sale of cattle C
1400000
steady decline due to predicted slide in cattle
prices
Whole farm Gross Margin value ($)

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

B
B
400000 B
B
B B

50% reduction in GM value due to reduced

200000 land condition and carrying capacity

C C C

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Year
Figure 8. Whole farm gross margin (GM, $) analysis for a representative northern Australian cattle
property with Mitchell grass pastures, with land condition held constant at B compared with to C in
year 2. Annotations indicate key GM changes (Phelps et al. 2007).

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 36

6.2.1. Signs Mitchell grassland condition can also
Most of the paddock or particular parts of the deteriorate in the absence of grazing or
paddock (e.g. preferred land type) are in C burning. Presumably the pasture composition
condition. of these open grasslands was maintained
through regular wildfires prior to
For the Open Downs land type this is pastoralism—possibly as large mosaic
demonstrated by a tussock spacing of 20–30 patches. Grazing has become the surrogate
m, a substantially reduced capacity of land to defoliation mechanism with the exclusions of
respond to rain and produce useful forage fire and seems to maintain Mitchell grass
(<40%), highly variable ground cover levels plant vigour and health under moderate
over time and 3P grass contribution to yield grazing pressure (Orr and Phelps 2004).
generally <60%.
Long-term overgrazing is the major cause of
The 3P grasses have thinned considerably C condition country outside of severe drought
and the pasture is dominated by desirable conditions—often a result of misjudged
annual grasses or forbs or by un-desirable carrying capacity. Frequent and severe
plants. Feed shortages may develop quickly defoliation can have deleterious effects on
in dry periods although ephemeral high both individual plants by reducing their vigour
nutritional quality feed may be available for and on soils and pastures by reducing land
short periods. condition (lower cover and more bare ground,
lower infiltration and more run-off, altered
The most serious limitation to improving land botanical composition, patchiness). Drought
condition is a reduced density of 3P grasses. can further damage weakened pasture, as
The soil seed bank should still be present to can intense wildfire.
enable species composition recovery.
The 3P grasses are often selectively grazed
The aim of management is to increase the within the pasture leading to them being
basal area and seed production of individual weakened, resulting in their death or
Mitchell grass plants and to take advantage reduction in size and vigour. Seed production
of seedling germination to restore 3P grass of 3P grasses may be prevented and
density. recruitment of new 3P grass seedlings is
minimal.
6.2.2. Causes
Severe drought—such as that experienced With the demise of 3P grasses other plants
from 2002 to 2008/09—can lead to the loss of increase which have strategies to survive the
Mitchell grass and a decline to C land grazing pressure. This may be quick growing
condition. This can occur under conservative and prolific seeding species (e.g. button
grazing pressure or even in the absence of grass) or species with unpalatable traits (e.g.
grazing. The key factor during drought wiregrasses, rattlepods) resulting in
appears to be below average rainfall coupled avoidance by livestock. Unpalatable traits
with high evaporation such as experienced in may include tough leaf blades and stems,
western Queensland over the 2002/03 chemical deterrents or physical deterrents
summer. It is possible that these conditions (prickles and spines).
dry out the soil for the full rooting depth of
Mitchell grass (generally >1 m) and prevent Bio-economic modelling suggests there is a
access to deeper moisture that keeps the threshold high stocking rate which leads to a
grass alive during drought dormancy (Phelps large drop in perennial grass percentage in
et al. 2007). Observations in 2002–2008/09 the pasture and hence a decline in land
suggest there are potential management condition over time. This threshold has yet to
practices to reduce Mitchell grass plant be defined for the Mitchell grasslands. It is
mortality during severe drought but actual clear that pasture spelling is unlikely to
management strategies are not yet clear.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 37

prevent this decline without reduction in Continued over-grazing in this situation
overall stocking rate as well. exacerbates the problem by pushing high
grazing pressure onto remnant Mitchell grass
6.2.3. Management response: reduce plants.
carrying capacity to match land
condition, implement wet season 6.2.4.1. Evidence
spelling and use forage budgeting Long term pasture growth is reduced to about
The keys to recovering C condition land are half the potential under C land condition.
to encourage the small number of Mitchell Attempting to maintain the same carrying
grass plants—and other 3P grasses—to capacity as expected for A condition will
expand in size at the base, to set seed and to result in chronic long term overgrazing and
promote regeneration through seedling exacerbate the decline in 3P grasses. Even
establishment. To achieve this it is necessary when coupled with pasture spelling (e.g. one
to adjust stocking rate to match a realistic year in every four) lower stocking rates than
long term carrying capacity, introduce pasture A condition are required to increase perennial
spelling, manage animal numbers to minimise grasses. Land in A condition retains a high
periods of feed shortage and wait for the proportion of perennial grasses even at
favourable conditions needed for Mitchell higher stocking rates (e.g. 6.7 ha/AE, Figure
grass the germinate and establish. 5) and under a range of stocking strategies.
In contrast, land in C condition only begins to
6.2.4. Management action: reduce long improve under a low stocking rate of
term carrying capacity to match land 14.4 ha/AE—even when combined with
condition spelling (Figure 9).
Some areas—particularly Ashy Downs— 6.2.4.2. Implementation
appear to have an unrealistically high
There is generally adequate Mitchell grass
expectation of long term carrying capacity.
seed in the soil to promote effective recovery
Stocking rates reported by graziers in
following above average summer rains when
northern Ashy Downs country suggest
coupled with effective grazing management.
estimated stocking rates up to 6–7 ha/AE as
Long term carrying capacity should be re-
the long term carrying capacity. Under a fixed
calculated for C condition country using the
stocking rate strategy (Section 6.1.5.1) this
GLM workshop approach and coupled with a
would lead to a steady decline in perennial
wet season spelling plan to restore land to B
grasses. Mitchell grass plants are poorly
condition. Plans should account for rainfall
anchored in the loose clay soils of the Ashy
variability by also introducing forage
Downs land type—making them susceptible
budgeting to avoid grazing Mitchell grass
to being pulled out during grazing—and
below the minimum residual stubble height of
suggesting that the long-term carrying
15-20 cm or residual yields of 1200–
capacity of the Ashy Downs is lower than
1500 kg/ha.
Open Downs.
6.2.4.3. Considerations/caveats
Observation suggests that cattle numbers
exceed the safe long term carrying capacity Property size, debt levels and cash flow
in areas of the north and north-western issues may be strong impediments to
Mitchell grasslands. This has created large graziers implementing lower stock numbers.
areas of C condition country dominated by Mitchell grass has only been observed to
annual grasses—such as Flinders grass. germinate and establish in substantial
Whilst Flinders grass is palatable, pastures numbers once every 20–30 years as the
dominated by annuals suffer feed shortages favourable combination of above average
almost every year by August/September. summer rainfall and low competition from
annual plants are infrequent.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 38

Figure 9. The impact of wet season spelling one year in four (red bars) compared with no
spelling (black bars) under four stocking rates on C condition Open Downs country.

6.2.5. Management action: implement

pasture resting Section 6.2.6). Care must be taken to prevent
A more realistic long term carrying capacity further overgrazing and resource degradation
will be most effective when couped with full which is likely if the pasture is continuously
wet season stocked.

Frequent and severe defoliation reduces the

spelling to improve land condition. Installing vigour of individual plants and impacts on
additional infrastructure may be useful to soils and pastures by reducing land condition
move stock away from preferentially (lower cover and more bare ground, lower
overgrazed land types or to enable the infiltration and more run-off, altered botanical
application of pasture resting. composition, patchiness). Rest aimed to
benefit pasture condition targets both the
The likely ephemeral pasture species present health and reproduction of individual plants
although less desirable than 3P grass may and the overall land condition.
still produce useful forage often for short time
periods before setting copious amounts of 6.2.5.1. Evidence
seed. This useful forage can be nutritious for Bio-economic modelling suggests that a four
short periods, although there will probably not paddock rotation can recover three out of four
be a large bulk. To effectively utilise this paddocks in poor condition, provided stocking
forage without causing further land rates match the safe utilisation level (Figure
degradation requires flexible grazing 10). Where stocking rate exceeds the safe
strategies which match stocking period and utilisation level it is likely that only one or two
stocking rates to this forage cycle (see paddocks can be restored to good condition.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 39

 Perennials per paddock MG

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 No spell
% perennials

Pdk1
50.0 pdk2
pdk3
40.0 pdk4

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Ye ars

Figure 10. Change in perennial grass percentage (from Bio-economic modelling) a) within the
pasture of individual paddocks under a one year out of four spelling system (pdk1–4) and b) on
average within all four paddocks with no spelling. The paddock spelling in the forth year (pdk2) did
not recover.

6.2.5.2. Implementation
A feed budget approach should be coupled Substantial evidence exists across many
with estimates of long-term carrying capacity. regions that indicate spelling during the wet
season and particularly during the early
Minimal gains will be made with resting if growing season when grasses are most
following the rest period stocking rates are susceptible to heavy defoliation is important
not matched to feed supply and ongoing for encouraging 3P grasses. Rest during the
overgrazing occurs. dry season may also be useful for
maintaining ground cover and improving
A general recommendation for improving rainfall infiltration for the following growing
pasture condition is to have a planned but season.
flexible regime to rest paddocks for the whole
growing season commencing from the first At the individual 3P grass scale, the grass
rain event sufficient to initiate new growth needs time to initiate a leaf canopy to
(38–50 mm in three days). Resting regimes commence photosynthesis, and then to grow,
can be described by their timing (seasonal), re-build root reserves and produce seed
duration and frequency or number of rest (Figure 11). Seedlings require time to grow a
periods. strong root system to survive the follow dry
season.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 40

Figure 11. The energy left in a 3P grass at the end of the dry season (e.g. 10 units) is redistributed
differently according to early wet season grazing or spelling, affecting how well the grass will grow
over the rest of the wet season.

The required frequency of resting or number The duration of rest period for poor condition
of rest periods to achieve a certain goal will pastures should be a minimum of eight
be determined by both initial land condition weeks, however resting for the whole growing
(resting alone is unlikely to be sufficient to (wet) season has been shown to be desirable
restore D condition land) and growing particularly in below-average rainfall years.
conditions experienced during the rest period
(pasture maintenance and recovery are 6.2.5.3. Considerations/caveats
boosted by good seasonal conditions). There have been no formal studies of the
Establishment of seedlings from the seed set length of spelling or frequency of spelling
during an earlier rest period may be needed to recover Mitchell grass low to
enhanced by a subsequent rest period. moderate density and hence to improve land
condition. Studies at Redland Park, between
Increasing the number of rest periods can be Kynuna and McKinlay demonstrated that rest
expected to give a greater pasture response over one summer of exceptional growing
but represents a trade-off as grazing is conditions can recover country from poor to
foregone during the rest period. There are no good condition. In this circumstance spelling
experiments in northern Australia dealing was for the full wet season. It is likely that full
explicitly with comparisons of the frequency wet season spelling is needed for 2-3
of rest periods but a number of trials provide summers if rainfall is about average and
useful information indicating that as land possibly 3-5 years if rainfall is below average.
condition declines pasture rests need to be
more frequent if land condition is to be Timing of rainfall is also important. Late
improved. winter and early summer rains can promote
broad leaved plants to grow, such as roly poly

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 41

and tar vine. These do not seem to out- For breeding properties, aim to have at least
compete Mitchell grass seedlings. With follow three to four paddocks to shift breeders
up rains, Mitchell grass seedlings should be through over a year including the growing
able to establish if protected from grazing. season. Determine the long-term carrying
However, annual grasses—such as Flinders capacity according to land condition and tree
grass—do out-compete Mitchell grass basal area and sell excess stock. Run the
seedlings. It is possible that C condition areas breeders in three of the four paddocks in the
dominated by annual grasses will have few early part of the growing season, until about
opportunities for recovery and that spelling mid January or the first round of branding. At
needs to be opportunistic. first branding, redistribute cows to another
three of the paddocks, spelling a second
It is likely that a property with less than half paddock in the later part of the growing
the paddocks in C condition and the rest in A season and grazing the paddock that was
or B condition is easier to recover than a spelled during the early part of the growing
property with more than half in C condition. season. At the second branding and weaning
Extra livestock can be moved onto the good in June, redistribute cattle to all paddocks or
condition country allowing more C condition rotate the cattle in one mob through all four
paddocks to be spelled—provided the good paddocks. A forage budget at this time of the
condition paddocks are managed through year will determine whether there is sufficient
feed budgets and are closely monitored. pasture to carry cattle through to the next
growing season. If not, cull dry breeders, cull
The longer that country remains in poor for age and other criteria to reduce numbers.
condition, the longer it may take to recover.
The amount of Mitchell grass seed in the soil Repeat this system in the second year,
was observed to decline during the 2002- spelling the two paddocks that weren’t
2009 drought. The few isolated Mitchell grass spelled in the first year. In the third year spell
tussocks present in poor condition areas the two paddocks that were spelled in the first
would first need to recover and produce year but in a different order so that each is
sufficient seed for a new generation of plants now being spelled at a different part of the
to establish. Research to date suggests that growing season than when spelled in the first
6 plants/ha can produce enough seed for this year.
to occur under good seed producing
conditions. For dry stock and growing cattle, aim to have
four to six paddocks so stock can be rotated
Animal performance is likely to be good for a through paddocks regularly, using short term
short period each year in C condition rapid rotational forage budgets. This will allow
paddocks and poor for the majority of the paddocks to be grazed for periods of two to
year. eight weeks (two months) at a time giving
each paddock a spell for some time in every
Fencing to subdivide paddocks may allow growing season. Use forage budgets at the
more flexibility for resting pastures, such as end of the growing season to determine
through rotational grazing systems. There is whether there is enough pasture to last stock
no literature that is conclusive in determining until the onset of the next growing season.
that rotational grazing systems are any better
at improving land condition than continuous 6.2.6. Management action: use forage
stocking of paddocks interspersed with budgeting to adjust stocking rate to
periods of rest. seasonal conditions
Forage budgeting is an important component
Breeding herds are difficult to manage when of restoring land in C condition to productivity.
calving in rapid rotational grazing systems. If Forage budgeting for C condition land should
a mob is moved every few days or each week aim to introduce a full wet season spell as
during the calving season, young calves are well as ensuring remnant Mitchell grass
at risk of being separated from their mothers. plants are grazed no lower than 20 cm

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 42

stubble height by the end of the grazed short grazing periods (e.g. 90-210 days)
(budget) period. To maximise the benefits of rather than annual budgets. C condition
a full wet season spell grazing should not re- Mitchell grass country may thus be best
commence until the majority of the remnant suited to backgrounding operations and are
Mitchell grass plants in the pasture have set unlikely to be suited to breeding operations—
seed, or not before early March. The forage especially if trying to restore land condition. If
budget will need to account for a usual rapid large areas of a property are in C condition it
decline in pasture yield by the end of may be appropriate to have a low number of
September due to weathering and windy (or no) breeders and concentrate on restoring
conditions. land condition with cattle classes or
enterprises (e.g. short term agistment) that
The same principles and strategies apply as offer the most flexibility in de-stocking. De-
for land in good condition (Section 6.1.5) but stocking would be necessary in most
it is likely that the country is most suited to instances by August/September.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 43

6.3. Woody plant problem
Woody thickening and encroachment is become a greater problem over time as
typified by large numbers of seedlings or sheep grazing is replaced by cattle.
saplings establishing into what used to be
open or lightly wooded areas. This is often a Gidyea thickening and invasion—or other
result of sequences of very wet years, trees and shrubs in isolated cases—will:
reduced competition from grasses due to  Compete with more palatable or more
heavy grazing, reduced intensity or frequency nutritious forage—reducing pasture
of fire, and possibly by rising carbon dioxide yield—and reduce long term carrying
levels. The essential management actions capacity.
are using prescribed burning to kill or  Limit the access of livestock to water in
suppress woody plants, matching stocking dense stands.
rate to a reduced long term carrying capacity  Create difficulties for mustering (both
and spelling to promote post-fire pasture sighting and accessing animals) in dense
recovery. stands.
 Harbour pest animals such as feral pigs.
An estimated 20–30% of the Mitchell  Provide habitat for kangaroos and
grasslands of western Queensland are wallabies, increasing the total grazing
wooded land types. Gidyea invasion into pressure and hence the risk of land
open downs land types and thickening in degradation.
wooded land types are the most common  Generally reduce biodiversity values.
issues with native tree and shrub species.
Thickened gidyea is generally in C or D In the open Mitchell grasslands, however,
condition with the loss of 3P grasses and patches of trees—such as vinetree,
evidence of soil loss and erosion. Boree has whitewood, supplejack and corkwood—are
thickened in some areas—most notably desirable to:
around Isisford—and is invading open land  Provide shade and shelter to livestock.
types in limited cases. Other tree and shrub  Provide browse as a supplement to cattle
species, e.g. mulga, are thickening within diets.
their land types but rarely invading into open
country. The most prevalent woody weed There is a balance in trying to encourage the
problem is invasion by prickly acacia— re-establishment of desirable trees on stony
especially in the northern Mitchell grasslands ridges and patches in the open land types
around Hughenden, Richmond and Julia and reducing the invasion and thickening of
Creek. Mesquite is an issue in some areas gidyea.
and Parkinsonia is widespread along major
drainage lines of riparian land types (e.g. 6.3.1. Signs
Open Alluvia). Seedling gidyea or boree spreading into open
land types and forming dense thickets in
Thickening and invasion by gidyea and boree wooded land types—especially within and
appears to be accelerating, possibly as sheep adjacent to Wooded Alluvia and Soft and
are being replaced by cattle. Sheep are Hard Gidyea.
observed to graze small (2-leaf stage) gidyea
seedlings when they emerge following rains The size, number and distribution of woody
and boree seedlings within browse height— plants can all be useful indicators of the
potentially providing a control mechanism. impact that woody plants are having on the
Cattle do not graze such small seedlings. pasture. In general a low density of large
Anecdotal evidence from fence-line contrasts scattered trees and shrubs is likely to have
of low and high gidyea density with and little deleterious effect on a pastoral
without sheep grazing support their potential production system and may, in fact, be
role in controlling gidyea thickening and beneficial. People’s memories of previous
invasion. It further suggests that gidyea will vegetation states (lower tree and shrub

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 44

densities, for example) can be unreliable. species (for water, light and/or nutrients),
Importantly, the change in woody plant grazing and browsing differentially affecting
biomass may be gradual and imperceptible biomass and possibly survival, and fire as a
so photographic records—including aerial remover of herbaceous biomass and a cause
photographs and satellite imagery—provide of top-kill and mortality of woody species.
more useful and reliable information for Some of these factors can be managed;
comparison over time. Another important sign some cannot. Among the factors driving
of current or impending problems can come observed or quantified increases in
from an examination of tree and shrub populations of woody plants are: sequences
population structures. A large proportion of of very wet years, reduced competition from
small plants (seedlings, saplings) may grasses due to heavy grazing, reduced
indicate a growing population though caution frequency and/or intensity of fire because of
is necessary when making such lack of fuel or active fire suppression or, as
interpretations. suggested in some literature, rising CO2
levels. The significance of these factors is
6.3.2. Causes likely to vary from place to place. One
Many factors drive tree and shrub important relationship is that between plant
populations. Some of the important ones are size and susceptibility to fire. For many
indicated in Figure 12 which portrays the species, small plants are more susceptible to
dynamic balance between tree, shrub and fire than large plants. This means that
pasture (mainly grasses) components of the increasing ‘woodiness’ associated with a lack
vegetation. The main drivers of the dynamic of fire can create a positive feedback in which
are rainfall as a promoter of germination and an effective fire becomes less likely. This
growth, drought as a cause of mortality, feedback loop is exacerbated by the negative
competition between grasses and woody effect of increasing woodiness on fuel loads.

Rainfall promotes trees, shrubs and grasses

Grazing suppresses grasses more than it inhibits shrubs

Trees Grasses
and shrubs

Competition between shrubs and grasses

Fire kills or suppresses shrubs

Intense drought can kill trees and shrubs

Grasses recover more rapidly

Figure 12. Factors affecting tree and shrub populations.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 45

6.3.3. Management response: fire and
grazing
Fire and grazing/browsing are the principal CSIRO research demonstrated that prickly
manageable factors that influence the woody acacia seedlings shorter than 1.5m can be
components of northern Australian killed by fire.
vegetation. Critically, these two manageable
factors interact with one another (Figure 12) 6.3.4.2. Implementation
as herbivores and fire, in effect, compete for Implementation of a regime of prescribed
herbaceous material. Prescribed burning, burning to manage woody plant populations
then, constitutes a management response to requires planning. The emphasis should be
increasing woodiness of northern Australian on a fire regime rather than on individual
vegetation. fires. Fires should be timed to suit the
purpose for which they are intended rather
6.3.4. Management action: use than following a simple schedule. This will
prescribed fire to kill or suppress generally mean waiting for those years in
woody plants which fuel loads are adequate.
Prescribed burning is one of the options to
control tree and shrub species. The action Gidyea is reputedly killed easily with a fire
would involve instituting a regime of mid-late when it is shorter than 1.5–2 m in height.
dry season burning: the most useful regime Once mature, a hot fire which will reach up
depending on the woody species present; into the canopy appears necessary. There is
their density; and the size class structure of limited research into controlling gidyea with
their populations. More intense fires may be fire.
useful for species that are more tolerant of
fire, where tree and shrub densities are high To achieve a hot fire, a minimum of about
and where plants are large. Less intense fires 2000 kg/ha of standing dry matter is needed.
may be suitable for fire-susceptible species or The lower the stocking rate, more productive
where the purpose is to reduce or suppress a the land type and lower the regrowth the
cohort of recently-established (i.e. small) more frequently a hot fire can be carried.
shrubs. Open downs country can carry a hot fire 4
years in 10 (on average based on the last
6.3.4.1. Evidence 100 years of rainfall) if not grazed for that
A lot of the fire research that has been period and just 1 year in 10 under higher
conducted in northern Australia has focused stocking rates (Figure 13). Soft mulga
on the ecology and management of the sandridge does not grow enough fuel—even
woody plant strata of the vegetation. This when ungrazed—to carry a hot fire
work has included research on native (information not presented). Despite
communities in the Top End and Victoria conventional wisdom, bio-economic
River District of the Northern Territory and the modelling strongly suggests that there is little
Northern Gulf savannas and Cape York extra benefit in spelling to achieve a fire—
Peninsula woodlands in Queensland as well possibly because it is difficult to predict when
as on invasive woody species in the Burdekin spelling is needed in relation to above-
woodlands of north-east Queensland. average summer rainfall.
Research is lacking for many regions and
vegetation communities.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 46

 100
90
80
% ye ars w ith b u rn

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ungrazed 14 10 8 7
Stocking Rate ha/AE

Figure 13. Lower stocking rates create more opportunities for fire in Open Downs.

6.3.4.3. Considerations/caveats
Graziers within the Mitchell grasslands will Burning when fuel loads are inadequate to
generally not contemplate fire as a achieve the purpose of the fire is obviously
management option, even for woody plant counter-productive. Likewise, it is important
control. A major reason for this is the that pastures are not grazed too soon after
immediate loss of forage which could be the fire. Grazing in the immediate post-fire
grazed in the short term or needed as period would hinder the recovery of desirable
drought reserve within the next 12–18 pasture species. In particular, it is ideal that
months. Mechanical or chemical options may palatable, perennial grasses are allowed to
be more readily adopted. set seed in the post-fire period and this may
require destocking or, at least, very low
There are some important considerations stocking densities. If pre- or post-fire
when contemplating the use of fire to manage destocking is necessary, forage must be
woody plant populations. The first is that available for livestock on other parts of the
prescribed burning comes at a cost. Costs property or off-property or they would have to
will be associated with any resting of pastures be sold.
that is required in order to build up fuel loads
so that an effective fire can be achieved. The Prickly acacia can provide useful browse—
costs associated with burning to control which may contribute significantly to livestock
thickening or encroachment are generally diets—and shade, contributing to livestock
immediate whilst the benefits may not be performance. As a result there is reluctance
seen for decades. from some graziers to treat this weed.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 47

6.4. Ungrazed areas distant from water
Paddocks within the western portion of the poorly located water points (in relation to
Mitchell grasslands or where non-downs land factors that influence grazing distribution such
types dominate are generally the only as topography, shade or favoured areas) can
remaining areas with considerable areas also contribute to this problem.
rarely grazed by livestock due to long
distances from water points. In these areas, If stocking rates for a paddock are based on
this unused pasture represents livestock paddock size but there are too few water
production that is forgone by the pastoral points for the size of the paddock, there will
business, whilst areas near water often be an excessive number of cattle per water
become degraded through overgrazing. point. This will contribute to the development
Paddocks in other areas of downs have sub- of large, expanding areas of overgrazing and
optimal water placement along fence-lines or land degradation around water points.
in corners of paddocks. Management options
that create the opportunity for cattle to use 6.4.3. Management response: develop
this pasture have the potential to increase water point and paddock infrastructure
returns to the livestock enterprise by allowing The most important management response
more cattle to be carried where paddocks are involves making the areas of palatable forage
currently stocked below the carrying capacity. accessible to cattle (i.e. all areas are within
Improvements in individual livestock walking distance of water for the cattle) by
production however are unlikely. The establishing more water points. Improving the
essential management actions are to install control of cattle grazing distribution by
more water points in large paddocks and reducing paddock size is also an important
optimise paddock size. Fire may sometimes response. This helps minimise the extent to
have a role (to remove accumulations of old which large numbers of cattle congregate in
forage and improve grazing distribution) and favoured areas of pasture or use favoured
spelling may aid the recovery of previously water points. If developing new water points
overgrazed areas. and reducing paddock size makes the areas
of ungrazed pasture available to cattle it may
6.4.1. Signs be possible to increase the number of stock
In large paddocks, significant areas of the carried (providing the long-term carrying
paddock distant from water points that capacity of a paddock is not exceeded). If a
contain palatable forage receive little or no paddock is usually stocked at the safe
grazing and accumulate masses of ungrazed carrying capacity of the land, installing
herbage. The areas near the water points that additional water points will not allow more
are subject to very high utilisation are also stock to be carried in the paddock, but may
likely to be large and/or expanding quickly. help to distribute grazing pressure more
evenly within the paddock.
6.4.2. Causes
The problem of having ungrazed areas 6.4.4. Management action: install more
distant from water principally arises in large water points in large paddocks
paddocks with few water points where Establishing additional watering points in or
animals are unable to reach the distant parts near areas of unused palatable forage will
of the paddock during daily foraging activities. increase the extent to which cattle graze
Cattle need to drink regularly (usually once a those areas. It is the most important
day) under the hot conditions experienced in management action to implement. For the
northern Australia. Since there is a limit to more extensive regions the distance from
how far they can walk between drinks they water to palatable forage should not generally
can only travel a limited distance from water exceed 3 km. Thus, to ensure reasonable
to forage, leaving areas of pasture beyond levels of use of an entire large paddock water
the usual foraging distance from water. In points should not be separated by more than
addition to having insufficient water points,

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 48

about 5–6 km. A good rule of thumb is to that contributes to the problem of forage not
allow one water point per 2000–2500 ha (20– being used effectively at distant sites.
25 km2) of land area for extensive areas.
In the Pigeon Hole project—where additional
Graziers within the Mitchell grasslands waters were established in a large paddock—
suggest that waters should be placed 3–4 km approximately 90% of cattle activity
apart (i.e. 1.5–2 km distance to water) to (assessed using GPS cattle collars) occurred
make even use of pasture within these open within 3 km of water. This was because a
land types. Many bore drains and old earth large proportion of the paddock was within 3
tanks have been replaced with poly pipe and km of water and there were smaller areas
tanks since the early 1990s. Where this is beyond this distance (the average distance to
continuing attention should be paid to current water in this paddock was 2.1 km). As a
recommendations. result there were fewer areas where
ungrazed forage accumulated. Establishing
6.4.4.1. Evidence new water points in large paddocks at Pigeon
To some extent, the notion that establishing Hole allowed more cattle to be carried
more water points in ungrazed areas will because more of the country was accessible
increase use of those areas is self-evident. for grazing. Thus a general recommendation
Practical experience bears this out. However, to improve the effective use of available
understanding the optimum number and pasture and minimise the size of areas of
distribution of water points to make best use ungrazed pasture in the more extensive
of available forage and the associated grazing regions is for the majority of a
response of livestock, productivity and land paddock to be within 3 km of water and the
condition for a region can be informed by distance between water points not to exceed
research. Most research on these issues has 5–6 km.
occurred in the more extensive regions (e.g.
central Australia and the Top End). There is One study of cattle grazing distribution in a
limited evidence from formal research studies commercial-sized paddock (1500 ha) north-
for other regions. However, research in east Queensland (using GPS collars) showed
rangelands in the USA has also that the majority of cattle activity occurred
demonstrated that establishing new water within approximately 2.5 km of water and the
points in under-utilised areas can increase average distance cattle were from water was
grazing in those areas and reduce pressure approximately 1500 m from water (see
on previously frequently used areas. McIvor et al. 2010).

Although a number of studies have reported 6.4.4.2. Implementation

the maximum distance cattle will walk from Waters should be sited away from fence lines
water to forage in northern Australia (e.g. up and areas that cattle favour (e.g. creek lines,
to 11 km on the Barkly Tableland and usually riparian areas, shady sites) whenever
no further than 5–8 km from water in central possible as this may help in reducing the
Australia), most grazing by cattle occurs extent to which cattle congregate around the
much closer to water. Grazing pressure water for lengthy periods and reduce the
usually declines markedly beyond about 3 km possibility these areas will be overgrazed.
from water, although where water points are They should also be sited away from
sparse cattle will use areas further from sensitive parts of the landscape, such as
water. For example, on the Barkly Tableland away from highly erodible soils or steeper
(where waters were separated by as much as areas where erosion can become an issue
10 km or more) an assessment over a from erosion and stock tracking which can
number of properties showed that 55–60% of divert water. Studies in semi-arid rangelands
cattle activity occurred within 3 km of water. in SA and WA have shown that grazing use
Although some cattle activity occurred further within paddocks is more evenly distributed if
from water this was low, particularly at the water points are located away from fences.
extreme distances. It is this uneven grazing Although corner and paddock boundary

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 49

locations for waters are preferred from a cost production because animals need to walk
perspective, they create problems because further to access feed. A centrally located
they concentrate cattle in a smaller area and water point dramatically increases the
increase the effective stocking rate close to watered area of the paddock and results in
water (Error! Reference source not found.). lower effective stocking rates within 5 km of
This creates larger sacrifice areas around the water (Table 8).
water and can negatively impact on

Table 8. Example of the impact of water point placement on effective grazing area and stocking rate.

New
water

Corner Water Fenceline Water Central Water

Corner Fenceline Central

Water Water Water
Total paddock area (km²) 100 100 100
Number of head in paddock 300 300 300
Area within 5km of water (km²) 20 39 79
Stocking rate within 5km of water (head per
15 8 4
km²)

In many areas of the Mitchell grasslands by other management considerations. In the

additional waters have encouraged increases more developed regions water points are
in kangaroo and wallaby numbers and can usually already closer than the
attract pigs or other feral animals. Dams recommendations.
should be fenced off to control feral animals
and consideration given to kangaroo control The cost of developing new water points must
e.g. kangaroo proof fencing on dams and be considered. Where installing new water
turning troughs off when not in use. One points ‘opens up’ new country to grazing the
novel approach being tested is to place investment is more likely to be worthwhile.
connections at regular intervals along new The quality of the land in ungrazed areas
pipelines to allow a cup and saucer tank to be should also be considered prior to installing
moved and reconnected as a deterrent to additional water points. Some land may be
kangaroo grazing, to distribute cattle grazing ungrazed because of low value pastures
pressure and to reduce capital cost. rather than because it is too far from water,
and installing a new water point to make this
6.4.4.3. Considerations/caveats area more readily accessible to cattle may
There will be regional differences in how not be financially worthwhile.
many water points are needed and how far
apart they should be placed. These In a paddock that has multiple water points
differences will be influenced by the cattle will not necessarily distribute
productivity and heterogeneity of the land and themselves evenly amongst the different

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 50

waters. In very large paddocks carrying many fenced to exclude grazing) to protect these
animals this can result in large congregations resources. A general suggestion is that up to
of cattle on certain water points. The number 10% of a property should be set aside to
of animals using a water point should be protect biodiversity.
limited to approximately 300 head (McIvor et
al. 2010). Graziers recommend two troughs GLM workshops have typically recommended
per watering point. water points be placed 2–3 km apart in the
Mitchell grasslands based on marginal gains
It is also important to note that despite having in carrying capacity. This evidence has been
improved access to water, cattle will continue based on earlier NT research and may
to graze paddocks unevenly. Other require adjusting (see Chilcott et al. 2002).
techniques to attract cattle to under-utilised
areas should also be implemented. For Climate change predicts higher temperatures.
example, the strategic location and regular This is likely to increase livestock water
relocation of supplements, ‘crash-grazing’ intake and may alter grazing patterns or
over one or two dry seasons to ‘even-up’ increase the time spent at water points.
paddock pasture use, slashing around
troughs to encourage new cattle pad 6.4.5. Management action: optimise
formation and strategically burning patch paddock size
grazed areas or areas with an accumulation Subdividing large paddocks to create smaller
of old senescent pasture may help. paddocks will provide better control over
where cattle graze and can thus improve the
If fire is used to remove accumulations of old use of previously ungrazed areas and help
feed careful management is required after reduce overgrazing of favoured areas. This is
burning. It is generally considered important a much more effective way of managing and
that perennial grasses in burnt areas be improving grazing distribution than simply
allowed to re-establish so there is a adding more water points to a paddock.
reasonable body of feed before they are However the financial cost involved can be
grazed again after burning. Burnt areas are substantial and it might be a less attractive
best rested from grazing for an entire growing option than establishing additional water
season before being grazed again. Burning in points.
the early dry season will effectively mean the
paddock cannot be used for the remainder of 6.4.5.1. Evidence
the dry season since the cattle will Although installing more water points to make
concentrate on these areas and potential kill ungrazed areas in a paddock more readily
the regrowing perennial grasses. accessible to cattle can increase the use of
these areas, large paddocks will not be
Spelling may also be required to allow the grazed evenly because cattle prefer other
recovery of overgrazed areas once new water areas. Some water points may also be
points are established (see Section 6.2). preferred so a large proportion of the herd
may graze in areas near those water points.
The effect of installing additional waters on Reducing the size of large paddocks provides
the natural biodiversity of an area should also better control over where cattle graze and
be considered. Many species of native fauna improves the effective use of available
and flora now only exist in areas that are forage, potentially allowing an increase in the
remote from water due to the impact of number of stock carried with reduced risk of
grazing on habitat or increased predator land degradation due to large concentrations
numbers due to increased water availability. of livestock occurring in favoured areas.
Installing additional waters so that few water-
remote areas remain may pose a risk to the There is limited evidence from formal
persistence of this biodiversity. Where research on the effect of paddock size on
important biodiversity resources exist, some grazing distribution and pasture use. The
areas should remain remote from water (or Pigeon Hole project in the VRD (Northern

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 51

Territory) is the only project to have 2000 ha) typical of the Burdekin region of
specifically investigated the effect of different north-eastern Queensland found that the
paddock sizes. Using GPS collars to record level of pasture defoliation varied little up to 2
cattle distribution in paddocks over periods of km from water (McIvor et al. 2010). The small
six months, the research at Pigeon Hole paddock size is likely to have contributed to
indicated that individual cattle (and the mob evening out grazing use, although other
as a whole) generally use a greater environmental factors such as the degree of
proportion of a paddock if paddock size is spatial variability in land type would also have
reduced. Confining cattle to smaller paddocks been important. This evidence suggests that
appears to have some effect in ‘forcing’ them paddocks of 1500–2000 ha (15–20 km2)
to use areas they may not use if paddocks might be appropriate for the Burdekin region
were larger (although they still may not use (although there are no readily available data
areas that contain few palatable plants). This on grazing patterns for larger paddocks in this
effect means that having more smaller region). Graziers also suggest 1500–2000 ha
paddocks results in grazing being distributed is an optimal paddock size within the Mitchell
more widely across the landscape as a grasslands as it allows a greater degree of
whole, and should improve the effective use control over grazing patterns, evenness of
of available forage. It is also obvious that pasture use and simplifies the implementation
fences control where cattle can go at the of spelling as there are more paddocks to
landscape scale, thus preventing too many spread livestock through. Where sheep
animals congregating on preferred parts of properties are being converted to cattle
the landscape. production it is recommend that the paddock
sizes be retained—in some cases paddock
Reducing paddock size to that which are being enlarged to 4000–6000 ha—thus
approximates the usual grazing radius of reducing managerial control over grazing.
cattle (i.e. the distance from water that
encompasses the majority of cattle grazing) 6.4.5.2. Implementation
could be considered the ideal for many of the To better manage grazing impacts paddocks
more extensive regions as it will mean most should be designed to separate minor land
areas in a paddock are accessible to cattle. types that are sensitive to grazing (e.g.
Assuming a grazing radius of 3 km this would riparian zones, frontage country) where
translate to a paddock size of about 3600 ha possible. Paddocks that contain relatively
(36 km2). In paddocks of this size at Pigeon uniform land types and pasture are likely to
Hole the herd generally used 80% or more of be grazed more uniformly. In many situations
the paddock area compared to approximately this will not be practical due to relatively small
70% in larger paddocks where additional size or irregular shapes of such areas.
watering points had been established. The However, an understanding of how cattle use
research showed that reducing paddock size the landscape (e.g. their tendency to avoid
did not substantially improve the uniformity of steep or rugged country) should be used to
grazing at smaller scales (e.g. patch scales) inform paddock design.
within paddocks. This suggests there is little
value in reducing paddock size below that Creating smaller paddocks will often also
where all parts are accessible to cattle (i.e. require the establishment of additional water
3000–4000 ha, 30–40 km2) in the more points to provide water in all paddocks.
extensive regions of northern Australia, from Where possible it is recommended that the
the perspective of improving grazing smaller paddocks contain at least two water
distribution. There are unlikely to be points (particularly if they are around 3000–
increases in total livestock production as a 4000 ha, 30–40 km2) since this would further
result of further reductions in paddock size. increase the extent of the area grazed in
paddocks, reduce the potential for excessive
There are regional differences in what is a overgrazing around water points (by reducing
suitable paddock size to aim for. A study of the number of cattle per water point), and
grazing patterns in smaller paddocks (500– provide some safety and flexibility should one

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 52

water point fail. Allowing at least one water some circumstances may reduce operating
point per 2000–2500 ha, 20–25 km2 of land costs. For example having a greater number
area is recommended to ensure all areas are of smaller paddocks will increase the
accessible to cattle. opportunities for pasture spelling, can make
mustering easier and can facilitate the use of
6.4.5.3. Considerations/caveats prescribed fire.
Cost is a major consideration when reducing
paddock size. Fencing costs escalate rapidly Smaller paddocks do not result in completely
for paddocks smaller than about 3000 ha even use within a paddock. Some areas may
(30 km2), and paddocks smaller than this may still not receive much use and some areas
be hard to justify solely on the grounds of will be heavily used. However, the rate at
improving grazing management. The which overgrazed areas grow will be slower.
development of new paddocks should occur As well as reducing paddock size, the use
first on the most productive land where other of tools such as the strategic placement
increased returns from development are most of supplements or prescribed fire should also
likely or to protect the most sensitive areas. be considered to improve grazing distribution
Fencing may occur in stages as older fences in paddocks (see section 6.4.4.3).
need replacing.

For more productive areas with higher

carrying capacities, smaller paddock sizes
are likely to be warranted in order to better
manage stocking rates, have mobs of a
manageable size and minimise the
occurrence of high concentrations of livestock
within paddocks. Smaller paddocks facilitate
the use of other management options and in

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 53

7. Conclusion
Any of the best-bet practices for managing  Factored in spelling to allow for pasture
grazing lands in the Mitchell grasslands recovery, seed set and land condition
described in this guide ultimately have two maintenance or improvement.
desired outcomes:  Are using strategies to even up grazing (
strategic placement of waters, fences
1. Optimising animal productivity; and and supplements).
2. Keeping the land healthy and productive.  Manage the encroachment of weeds, in
particularly woody weeds,
No matter which grazing strategy is used on a
property as long as management has they will be helping to improve land condition
planned to: and productivity.
 Stock to carrying capacity for that land
type and region.

8. Contributing to best-bet practices in the Mitchell

grasslands
This guide and other regional versions are guide by providing your feedback to David
the product of the Northern Grazing Systems Phelps DEEDI Longreach. Any contributions
(NGS) initiative which has been developed to this document will be welcomed and
and implemented as a partnership between regular revisions of this document will help
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA), CSIRO, inform the work we and others do with
Agri-Science Queensland (part of DEEDI), grazing industries into the future.
the Northern Territory Department of
Resources, and the Western Australian Key findings from research projects right
Department of Agricultural and Food. through to anecdotal evidence from reputable
landholders will be gladly considered in future
Not all the regional guides were developed revisions. Information should address the four
concurrently however to access other main issues or additional issues if you think
regional guides please contact David Phelps necessary and then address one of the
DEEDI Longreach, email: following headings:
[email protected] phone: (07)  Signs (how the issue is expressed)
4650 1200 or Meat and Livestock Australia.  Underlying causes
 Responses – the key practices and their
Research and development is ongoing. We rationale
are continually improving our knowledge and  The specific management actions that
skills when it comes to Research, can contribute to achieving better
Development and Extension (RD&E) for the practice and the evidence base for these
grazing lands of northern Australia.  How to implement these actions
 The trade-offs, caveats, uncertainties
You (the reader) in your work are also either and other associated issues.
contributing to or coming into contact with
RD&E regularly and as such we would like
you to contribute to improving this technical

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 54

9. Glossary of terms
Adult equivalent (AE)
A system that allows cattle of different age, weight and metabolic state to be compared equally
according to their relative intakes. One AE is defined as a 450 kg dry beast maintaining live weight.
One AE is equivalent to 9 dse.

Dry sheep equivalent

A system that allows sheep of different age, weight and metabolic state to be compared equally
according to their relative intakes. One dse is defined as a 50 kg dry sheep maintaining body
weight. One dse is equivalent to 0.11 AE.

Growing season
Most grass growing rain falls from November through to March in the Mitchell grasslands. During
this period, energy from day-length, temperatures and radiation drive photosynthesis for pasture
growth and seeding when there is adequate soil moisture.

Land condition
The capacity of land to respond to rain and produce useful forage. It is assessed by considering
current pasture, soil and woodland condition. It is generally slow to change depending on long-term
management and conditions.

Land type
Land types are manageable units of land, readily recognised by landholders as having distinct soil,
vegetation, landform and productive capacity.

Long term carrying capacity

The number of stock which your paddock can carry, on average, year in, year out (>10 years)
based on the type of country you have, it’s current condition and the inherent climatic conditions. It
is a useful benchmarking tool but actual stocking rates will vary below and above this value
depending on seasonal conditions.

Pasture growth model

A computer program that estimates pasture growth by simulating ecological processes with
mathematical relationships. In northern Australia, a model called GRASP gives the most accurate
estimates of pasture growth.

Stocking rate
The number of stock as AEs per unit area at a particular time—usually expressed as ha per AE or
dse.

Tree basal area

A measure of the competitive effects of trees on pasture growth, measured by the area of ground
covered by tree trunks when they are measured 30 cm above ground level. This is negligible within
open Mitchell grass land types, but can be extremely high within gidyea and boree land types.

Utilisation level
The amount of a pasture eaten by grazing animals usually expressed as a percentage of the total
pasture grown in one season.

Wet season spelling

Resting pastures from grazing during the growing season. It is also referred to as wet season rest
and summer-rest grazing.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 55

References
Ash, A.J. and Stafford Smith, D.M. (1996). Evaluating stocking rate impacts in rangelands: animals
don't practice what we preach. The Rangeland Journal 18, 216-243.

Chilcott, C., Milson, J and Phelps, D. (2002). ‘Grazing Land Management – Mitchell grasslands
version workshop notes’. Meat and Livestock Australia: Sydney.

Clewett J.F. and Clarkson N.M (2007). Influence of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation on climate risk
and native pastures in the northern Murray-Darling Basin, Tropical Grasslands 41, 203–215

Hall, T.J., McIvor, J, Jones, P, MacLeod, N, McDonald, C, Reid, D, Smith, D and Delaney, K
(2010). Investigating cell grazing and other grazing management systems in northern Australia.
Final Report Project B.NBP.0353 (submitted for review). Meat and Livestock Australia: Sydney.

Hunt, L., Petty, S., Cowley, R., Fisher, A., White, A., MacDonald, N., Pryor, M., Ash, A., McCosker,
K., McIvor, J. and MacLeod, N. (2010). ‘Sustainable development of VRD grazing lands’. Final
Report Project B.NBP.0375 (submitted for review). Meat and Livestock Australia: Sydney.

Johnston, P.W., McKeon, G.M. and Day, K.A. (1996). Objective ‘safe’ grazing capacities for south-
west Queensland Australia: development of a model for individual properties. The Rangeland
Journal 18, 244–258.

Jones, R.J. and Sandland, R.L. (1974). The relation between animal gain and stocking rate:
derivation of the relation from the results of grazing trials. Journal of Agricultural Science 83,
335-342.

McIvor, J.G., Bray, S., Grice, T. and Hunt, L. (2010). ‘Grazing management guidelines for northern
Australia: Scientific rationale and justification’. Final Report Project B.NBP.0579. Meat and
Livestock Australia: Sydney.

O'Reagain, P.J. and Bushell, J.J. (2011). The Wambiana grazing trial. Key learnings for
sustainable and profitable management in a variable environment. DEEDI, Brisbane.

O'Reagain, P., Bushell, J., Holloway, C. and Reid, A. (2009). Managing for rainfall variability: effect
of grazing strategy on cattle production in a dry tropical savanna. Animal Production Science
49, 85-99.

Orr, D.M. and Phelps, D.G. (2004). Long term responses of Astrebla spp. (Mitchell grass) tussocks
to rainfall in north-western Queensland. Proceedings 13th Australian Rangelands Conference,
Alice Springs, Australia.

Phelps, D.G. (2006). ‘Controlling Aristida latifolia (feathertop wiregrass) in Astrebla spp. (Mitchell
grass) grasslands with fire and grazing’. PhD thesis, University of New England.

Phelps, D.G, Orr, D.M. and Houston I. (2007). ‘Mitchell grass death in Qld: extent, economic
impact and potential for recovery’. Final Report Project B.NBP.0348. Meat and Livestock
Australia: Sydney.

Quirk, M and McIvor, J. (2003). ‘Grazing Land Management; Technical Guide’. Meat and Livestock
Australia; Sydney.

Whish, G. (2009) ‘Land Types of Queensland’ CD. DEEDI, Brisbane.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 56

Acknowledgements
This guide has been produced with the support of the Australian Government’s Caring for our
Country and Climate Change Research Programs and Meat and Livestock Australia through the
projects ‘Enhancing adoption of improved grazing and fire management practices in northern
Australia: Bio-economic analysis and regional assessment of management options‘ and
‘Developing improved on-ground grazing practices and industry strategies for beef production
enterprises across northern Australia to adapt to climate change’—components of the Northern
Grazing Systems initiative.

Many industry members and technical experts gave generously of their time and experience during
the development of this guide through regional workshops and related activities. Within the Mitchell
grass region, these contributors included: Lindsay and Sally Allan, Longford Station; David
Counsell, Dunblane; Will Hobbs and Fia Adams, Tarrina; Rod Shannon and Dan Forster, Rodney
Downs; Jay Simms, Malvin Park; Peter Whip, Bandon Grove; Steve Wilson, Desert Channels
Queensland; Ian Houston, Désirée Jackson, Jenny Milson, David Orr and Lew Markey, DEEDI.

The project team is grateful for the contributions across the other regions of northern Australia:

Victoria River District: Allan Andrews, Consolidated Pastoral Company; Keith Holzwart, Avago
Station, KPIAC Chairman; Michael and John Underwood, Riveren Station; John and Helen
Armstrong, Gilnockie Station; Adam Northey, VRDCA, Andrew Craig and Michael Jeffery, DAFWA;
Ellena Hannah, Neil MacDonald, Trudi Oxley, Tim Schatz, Simone Parker, David Ffoulkes and
Kieren McCosker (DoR).

Barkly region: Allan Andrews, Consolidated Pastoral Company; John Dunnicliff, Scotty and Jane
Armstrong, Beetaloo and Mungabroom Stations; Henry Burke, Suzie Kearins, Brunette Downs
Station; Ross Peatling, Pam Gobbett, Alexandria Station; Jason Johnson and Leanne Hilder,
Tennant Creek Station; Naomi Wilson, BLCA; Cassie Duggan, Ellena Hannah, Sarah Streeter,
Whitney Dollemore and Casey Collier (DoR).

Fitzroy Basin: John Graham, Withersfield; Glynn Williams, Mount Mica; Richard Hawkins,
Bonacord; Lawrie Hawkins, Serpentine; Hugo Spooner, Avocet; Trudy Roberts, Callistemon; Jeff
and Karen Mills, Melrose; Beryl Dyer, Bloomfield; Megan Daniels, CHRRUP; Gina Mace, Piers
Harper, Joe O'Reagain, Gavin Peck, Elyse Riethmuller (FBA); George Bourne, Julianna
McCosker (DERM); Lindy Symes, David Orr, Anne Shepherd, Peggy Rohan (DEEDI)..

Maranoa Balonne: Rick Whitton, Myrtleville; Jeff Campbell, Currawarra; Don Perkins, Nelyambo;
George Schwennenson, Telgalsie; Peter Thompson, Echo Hills; Sid Cook, Eddie Row, Suzy
White, Alexis Green, QMDC; Jed Taylor, Kay Taylor, Richard Silcock, Trevor Hall and Dale Kirby,
DEEDI.

Best-bet Mitchell grassland management 57