Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T07:37:57.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

2.7 Hill Resource Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

J. Eadie  and
T. J. Maxwell
J. Eadie
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Penicuik, Midlothian
T. J. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Penicuik, Midlothian
Get access

Extract

For the purpose of this paper ‘hill resources’ will be interpreted to mean the land resources of the hills and uplands. ‘Management’ will be assumed to include strategic and tactical decision making. It will further be assumed that the invitation is to discuss computers in animal production in relation to farming practice and not to research aimed at improving farming practice. In fact, computers will hardly be discussed at all. Computers are tools in this context and are aids to decision making. It seems much more likely that they will be more effectively used if we can be clear about decision making and its nature in relation to current knowledge and understanding and to the needs of farming systems based on the land resources of the hills and uplands.

The official statistical deposition of hill sheep farms in Scotland includes reference to land resources; these farms have more than 90% of the land in rough grazings and less than 15% in crop. The definition includes reference to the allocation of man-days among sheep and cattle. The Scottish upland farm description also includes reference to land resources and there are, for example, constraints in the relationship of crop and rough grazing areas. Hill and upland farms in England and Wales come into the category known as Livestock Rearing farms, where distinction between hill sheep and upland farms is made on the distribution of man-days among cattle and sheep.

Type
2. Animal Enterprise Management
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 5 , 1981 , pp. 81 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Gunn, R. G. and Maxwell, T. J. 1978. The effects of liveweight change about mating on lamb production in Greyface ewes. Anim. Prod. 26: 392.Google Scholar
Grant, S. A., Barthram, G. T. and Torvell, L. 1981. Components of regrowth in grazed and cut Lolium perenne swards. Grass and Forage Science (in press).Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. 1977. Factors limiting herbage intake by the grazng animal. Proc. Int. Meeting on Animal Production from Temperate Grassland, Dublin, 06, 70–75.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Milne, J. A. 1978. The influence of weight of herbage per unit area and per animal upon the grazing behaviour of sheep. 7th General Meeting of European Grassld Fed., Ghent, 4.31–4.38.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Wade, M. H. 1979. Grazing management and herbage production. In Grazing: sward production and livestock output, papers presented at the Br. Grassld Soc. Winter Meeting 1978, 1.1–1.12.Google Scholar
Maxwell, T. J. 1978. Management Decisions in Grazing Systems. BSAP Summer Meeting, Sheep on Lowland Grass, 21–27.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A., Maxwell, T. J. and Souter, W. A. 1981. Effect of supplementary feeding and herbage mass on the intake and performance of grazing ewes in early lactation. Anim. Prod. (in press).Google Scholar
Sibbald, A. R. 1981. Modelling sheep systems. Computers in Animal Production. Occ. Publ. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. No. 5.Google Scholar