Tasmania Cell Grazing Produces Nearly Twice as Much Pasture in Early Trial
A long term sheep trial in northern Tasmania has produced nearly twice as much pasture under high density cell grazing as under conventional grazing, according to interim results released on 12 November 2026.
The Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture update reports that the strongest cell grazing treatment produced 900 kilograms of dry matter pasture per hectare. The best results came when paddocks were rested for five to six months between short periods of concentrated grazing.
The finding is potentially important for sheep producers facing dry seasons and feed shortages, but it is not yet a final verdict on regenerative grazing. The experiment is halfway through a four year program, and researchers are still measuring profitability, labour requirements, greenhouse gas emissions and whether early soil carbon changes persist.
More pasture does not automatically mean more profit
Cell grazing concentrates Merino sheep in a smaller area for a short period, then gives the pasture a longer recovery period. Conventional grazing keeps animals in a paddock for longer and gives plants less time to rebuild leaf area and root reserves.
The Tasmanian result suggests that recovery time can materially change the amount of feed a paddock produces. More pasture could support higher stocking capacity, reduce purchased feed or preserve a buffer for drought. Those outcomes depend on whether animals can actually use the extra feed at the right time and whether its nutritional quality is adequate.
Farm economics will also depend on fencing, water access, animal movement, labour and the number of grazing cells. A system that grows more pasture can still disappoint financially if daily management costs rise faster than usable feed value.
The soil carbon result is promising but early
Researchers reported that soil carbon under cell grazing increased by about 2.9 tonnes per hectare each year, while the conventional treatment decreased by about 0.9 tonnes per hectare each year.
The difference is large enough to merit attention, but the research team cautioned that soil carbon changes slowly. Short measurement periods can be influenced by sampling location, seasonal conditions and natural variation across a paddock. Several more years are needed to determine whether the two treatments follow genuinely different long term paths.
Even if soil carbon continues to rise, a complete climate assessment must include methane from sheep, nitrous oxide, pasture productivity and any change in stocking rate. More feed can allow more animals, which may raise total methane even when soil carbon improves.
Drones reduce the measurement burden
The trial is also testing whether drone imagery can replace part of the slow work of cutting and weighing pasture samples by hand. Researchers used aerial images before and after grazing to estimate how much feed sheep consumed and to map stronger and weaker parts of the paddock.
That matters because cell grazing relies on timing. Producers need to know when a paddock has recovered, how much feed is available and whether animals should move. A drone can survey more ground than a small number of manual cuts, although the estimates still need calibration against physical measurements.
The university project description says the trial is designed to test drought resilience, pasture recovery, soil carbon, emissions, profitability and practical feasibility. Partners include the University of Melbourne and Charles Sturt University, with funding from the Australian Government Future Drought Fund.
What farmers should wait to see
The most useful final result will not be a simple winner between cell grazing and conventional grazing. Farmers need to know which stocking intensity, grazing duration and recovery period work under different rainfall patterns, soil types and business constraints.
Animal performance is equally important. More dry matter per hectare must translate into acceptable live weight gain, wool output, reproduction and welfare. The release does not yet provide those production outcomes or a full cost comparison.
The remaining trial period should also reveal whether five to six months of rest is practical across an entire farm. A long recovery period requires enough paddocks or alternative feed to keep animals supplied while grazed cells recover.
For now, the evidence supports a narrower conclusion. Under the conditions measured at Evandale, concentrated grazing followed by long recovery produced substantially more pasture than the conventional comparison. It does not yet prove that every regenerative grazing system is more profitable, lower in emissions or better suited to drought.
Methodology and disclosure
Agrilinkage reviewed the current institute release, the official university project description and the stated limitations. No interviews were conducted. The cover is an original conceptual illustration and does not show the actual trial farm.
Comments