Implementing Perennial Pastures with Cover Crops for Grazing Enterprises - A FEED365 Technical Case Study
By Kate Parker, WMG Project Officer
Farm Context
Location: Yathroo, WA
Soil type: Deep White/Grey Sand
Rainfall:
| Year | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | LTA (Long Term Average) |
| Annual Rainfall (mm) | 650 | 380 | 475 | 570 |
| Growing season (April- October) Rainfall (mm) | 575 | 355 | 465 | 500 |
Enterprises: Livestock (cattle), Backgrounding
Management strategy: Rotational grazing and perennials/multi-species
Treatments: Annual pasture (control), established subtropical perennial grass pasture and an established subtropical perennial grass pasture cover-cropped with forage cereals
Cover Crop Details
Sowing date: Early June – 2022, Mid May – 2023, Mid April – 2024
Row Spacing: 25cm
Pasture species, variety and sowing rate:
| 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |||
| Species | Sowing rate (kg/ha) | Species | Sowing Rates (kg/ha) | Species | Sowing Rates (kg/ha) |
| Moby barley | 30 | Bison Triticale | 35 | Bison Triticale | 20 |
| Williams oats | 20 | Ryecorn (unknown variety) | 15 | Jurien Lupin | 40 |
| Bison triticale | 15 | Lupin (unknown variety) | 45 | Williams Oats | 10 |
| Volga vetch | 10 | Cadiz Serradella | 12 | Dictator Barley | 30 |
| Rocket ryegrass | 5 | ||||
| Arrowleaf clover | 1 | ||||
*Previously established with a mix of Megamax panic grass and Reclaimer Rhodes grass in August of 2018.
Background
Murray, a farmer involved in the three year FEED365 Project pasture trial, has been evaluating the benefits of introducing perennial pastures with cover crops (Pcc) into his farming system. The goal was to enhance pasture resilience, improve grazing distribution, and increase livestock performance throughout the year. Murray currently manages a mixed grazing system, primarily using annual pastures (AP) and has trialed both perennial pastures and perennial pastures with cover crops over the past three years. This case study explores the economic and practical considerations of adopting these pasture systems.
Pasture Systems and Results
The trial focused on comparing three pasture systems: perennial pastures (P), perennial pastures with cover crops (Pcc), and annual pastures (AP). Key metrics of interest included liveweight gain (LWG) from livestock, dry matter (DM) production, stock days, and overall gross margins. The data summarised over the three years are as follows:
Economic Analysis
The results revealed that the gross margin varied significantly between pasture systems across different years. Below is a summary of the gross margin performance for the three systems.
| Year | Pcc Gross Margin ($) | P Gross Margin ($) | AP Gross Margin ($) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | $4 | $134 | $133 |
| 2023 | $161 | $118 | $40 |
| 2024 | $215 | $103 | $115 |
| Average | $127 | $118 | $96 |
Gross Margin Impact of Cattle Price
The following Gross Margin Table compares the gross margins for each pasture system (Pcc, P, and AP) across three years of the trial, aimed at exploring how different management systems would have performed under varying market conditions.
| Gross Margin Table | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Avg | |||||||||
| Year estimated | Cattle Price/kg | Pcc | P | AP | Pcc | P | AP | Pcc | P | AP | Pcc | P | AP |
| 2023 | $1.70 | -$30 | $97 | $96 | $71 | $85 | $29 | $107 | $75 | $83 | $49 | $86 | $69 |
| Conservative avg | $2.35 | $4 | $134 | $133 | $161 | $118 | $40 | $215 | $103 | $115 | $120 | $118 | $96 |
| 2024 | $2.50 | $12 | $143 | $141 | $182 | $126 | $43 | $240 | $110 | $122 | $145 | $126 | $102 |
| 2022 | $3.50 | $64 | $200 | $198 | $320 | $176 | $60 | $408 | $153 | $171 | $264 | $176 | $143 |
The Gross Margin Table shows that cattle prices significantly influence the profitability of different pasture systems. Under low cattle prices ($1.70/kg), Pcc shows a negative return in Year 1 (-$30), improving over time but still lagging behind P and AP. However, as cattle prices rise to $2.35/kg and $2.50/kg, Pcc becomes more profitable, eventually outperforming AP by Year 3. P, a more established system, consistently delivers stable returns across all price scenarios, with steady growth in profitability. AP, on the other hand, remains more responsive to market fluctuations, but its profitability declines over time, especially under lower cattle prices.
While Pcc starts with a negative return in Year 1, its profitability grows substantially in the following years, reaching $143 by Year 3 under high cattle prices. This indicates that Pcc requires time to establish and become profitable. P shows steady returns over the trial period, with $200 in Year 1, declining slightly in the following years but remaining the most stable and profitable system overall. AP provides a strong return in Year 1, but its profitability declines as the years progress, reflecting the short-term nature of annual pastures.
The table is a valuable tool for decision-making, allowing farmers to assess the most profitable system under varying market conditions. P offers the most stable and consistent returns, making it the best option for long-term sustainability. Pcc, while requiring more time to establish, can provide high returns under favorable conditions, particularly with higher cattle prices. AP remains a flexible option but may not offer the same long-term stability as P or Pcc, particularly in variable market conditions.
The economic analysis highlights the resilience of perennial systems over time, particularly when cattle prices are higher. While P consistently provided reliable returns, Pcc became increasingly profitable in years with more favorable market conditions, demonstrating the long-term benefits of investing in perennials with cover crops.
Stock Days
The trial also measured stock days per season across the three pasture systems. Stock days represent the number of cattle and the time they spend grazing in the paddocks, and this metric provides insight into grazing intensity and pasture utilisation.
| Year | Season | Control (AP) | Perennial | Perennial + CC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022/3 | Winter | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spring | 2774 | 2418 | 2842 | |
| Summer | 4310 | 3450 | 4485 | |
| Autumn | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2023/4 | Winter | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spring | 4695 | 5919 | 6183 | |
| Summer | 0 | 0 | 1488 | |
| Autumn | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2024/5 | Winter | 2016 | 704 | 2200 |
| Spring | 7056 | 3969 | 9250 | |
| Summer | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Autumn | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Interestingly, while 2023 and 2024 were drier years than 2022, with reduced rainfall during the growing seasons, the stock days increased across the Perennial and Perennial + CC systems. This is a notable outcome that has important implications for both pasture management and livestock productivity.
- Increase in Stock Days Despite Drier Conditions
Even though 2023 and 2024 were drier than 2022, stock days continued to increase across both perennial systems. This trend reflects Murray’s learnings and adaptation to changing conditions. Over the three years, he has progressively adjusted his grazing management to ensure that pastures (especially those with cover crops) can continue to support more intensive grazing. His ability to maintain or increase stock days during these drier years indicates that perennial pastures with cover crops (Pcc) are more resilient and adaptable to fluctuating climatic conditions. - Development of Grazing Management
Murray’s adaptation of his grazing practices over the years is evident in the increased stock days across Pcc and P systems. Initially, in 2022, Pcc had the lowest stock days across all systems, with P performing slightly better than AP. However, over time, as Murray refined his grazing approach, the Pcc system began to outperform the others, especially in spring and summer of 2023 and 2024. This shift highlights how Murray’s grazing management strategies, including rotational grazing and optimising the use of perennial pastures, have evolved to provide more grazing days, even in adverse weather conditions. - Sustained Feed Availability
The increase in stock days during these drier years also reflects better pasture utilisation and more consistent feed availability. The cover crops have supplemented the perennial grasses, enabling higher grazing intensity and more efficient pasture management, even when the natural forage production was limited by lower rainfall. This ensures that Murray’s livestock are consistently provided with enough forage, without needing as much supplementary feeding. - Grazing Resilience and Flexibility
Overall, the rise in stock days, particularly in dry years, is indicative of the grazing system’s resilience and Murray’s evolving ability to manage grazing pressure. The Pcc system has become more robust, capable of supporting more intensive grazing over longer periods, which is crucial for mitigating the challenges of drought and changing climatic patterns.
Despite the drier conditions in 2023 and 2024, Murray’s adaptive management strategies allowed for increased grazing intensity. By optimising pasture utilisation and adjusting stocking rates, he managed to support higher stock days. This demonstrated that perennial pastures with cover crops are more resilient to fluctuating climatic conditions and can support more intensive grazing, even in dry years.
Average Daily Gains
Across the three-year trial, cattle grazing the Perennial + Cover Crop (Pcc) system consistently achieved higher average daily weight gains compared to the other pasture types. In fact, average daily gain increased each year for Pcc, peaking in Year 3 at 0.97 kg/head/day. This trend suggests that incorporating cover crops into a perennial system provides a higher-quality and more diverse feed base, likely boosting animal performance through improved nutrition.
The Perennial (P) system also outperformed the Annual Pasture (AP) in all three years, reinforcing the value of perennial pastures for consistent livestock growth. However, without the added benefit of cover crops, Perennial pastures delivered lower liveweight gains than Pcc—averaging 0.62 kg/head/day versus Pcc’s 0.83 kg/head/day.
The Annual Pasture system showed the lowest ADG each year, with especially poor performance in the second year (0.28 kg/head/day). This is likely due to variability in feed quality and quantity, which is common with annual systems, particularly under dry seasonal conditions.
These results suggest that while perennial pastures provide a stable foundation for grazing, integrating cover crops can significantly improve cattle growth rates—making the Pcc system a valuable option for farmers aiming to increase livestock productivity from the same land base.
| Year | Perennial (P) | Perennial + cover crop (Pcc) | Annual Pasture (AP) |
| 2022 | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.65 |
| 2023 | 0.54 | 0.95 | 0.28 |
| 2024 | 0.53 | 0.97 | 0.38 |
| Average | 0.62 | 0.83 | 0.44 |
Practical Considerations for Adoption
Murray has identified several practical considerations and challenges when implementing perennial pastures with cover crops:
- Capital Investment and Infrastructure
Murray has talked on plans to transition to smaller paddocks (from 70 ha to 20-25 ha) which requires significant capital investment, including fencing and infrastructure to manage rotational grazing. The increased intensity of grazing may lead to better pasture control, but it also means higher upfront costs. Additionally, there will be one-time costs for amelioration (e.g., plowing and claying) to improve soil structure before establishing perennials. - Establishment Costs and Timeframe
Establishing perennials with cover crops requires careful management. The cost of seeding and cover crop establishment is around $180/ha, with a mix of $100-110 for seed and $60 for contracted seeding. Light grazing is essential in the first year to allow for establishment, and a full establishment process can take 12-18 months. The timing of establishment is crucial, especially during favourable summer conditions. - Pasture and Grazing Management
The results show that perennial pastures with cover crops support better grazing distribution, leading to more even utilisation of the pasture and improved soil health. For example, leaving some pasture cover during late spring and early summer enhances the pasture’s use during autumn when growth slows down.
Learning from the Trial and Future Plans
Murray has learned valuable insights from the trial that could guide future pasture management practices:
- Legume Options: Lupins performed better than expected, particularly on the trial paddock’s poorer soils, and are now being considered as a reliable and cost-effective legume option, offering an alternative to more expensive options like vetch.
- Feed Management: Ensuring that autumn feed is locked in by leaving cover in the annual pastures during spring is critical. This practice ensures that pastures have adequate dry matter for grazing in autumn, particularly for periods when growth slows down.
- Grazing Distribution: Livestock grazing on the trial paddocks tended to graze more evenly across the paddock, compared to other systems where they preferred specific areas. This even grazing is a promising outcome of implementing rotational grazing strategies.
Conclusion
The trial’s results indicate that integrating perennial pastures with cover crops offers several advantages, including higher dry matter production, improved grazing distribution across seasons, and more sustainable grazing management. Although initial investment in infrastructure and pasture establishment can be high, the long-term benefits—such as improved livestock weight gain and a more sustainable grazing system—make it a viable option for farmers looking to optimise pasture management and productivity.
Farmers considering adopting perennial pastures with cover crops should plan carefully for capital investment, grazing management, and soil amelioration. Additionally, adopting a phased approach to paddock conversion and improving grazing intensity can further increase the economic returns from these pasture systems.
