**5. Conclusions**

Mob-grazing with cattle reduced forage selectivity and utilized undesirable plants compared to low stocking density rotational grazing. Long-term benefits of mob-grazing, while difficult to quantify in short-term studies, can be positive and numerous SD ranchers have adopted this technique to their advantage. In this study, we realize that stricter control of variables such as stocking density, timing, and pasture size, may have resulted in more repeatable and statistically significant results. However, this research was conducted on working ranches and represents actual producer management decisions based on forage pasture conditions, annual climate, and cattle needs. Therefore, the results may be more applicable to NGP ranchers. Ranchers who are interested in using mob grazing should start small to determine how best to employ this system in their operation. Future research that combines mob-grazing at the most vulnerable stages of weed species growth with other management practices (e.g. herbicide application or pasture fertilization) should be considered. We conclude that mobgrazing can decrease forage selectivity and be a useful tool in for integrated weed management of WS, especially for plants larger than 6500 cm3 in the NGP.

[4] Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 2005;

Mob Grazing Results in High Forage Utilization and Reduced Western Snowberry Size

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83402

31

[5] Popay I, Field R. Grazing animals as weed control agents. Weed Technology. 1996;**10**:

[6] Frid L, Hanna D, Korb N, Baver B, Bryan K, Martin B, et al. Evaluating alternative weed management strategies for three Montana landscapes. Invasive Plant Science and Management.

[7] Bowes GG, Spurr DT. Improved forage production following Western snowberry (*Symphoricarpos Occidentalis* hook.) control with Metsulfuron methyl. Canadian Journal

[8] Romo JT, Grilz PL, Redmann RE, Driver EA. Standing crop, biomass allocations patterns and soil-plant water relations in *Symphoricarpos occidentalis* hook. Following autumn or

[9] Sbatella GM, Wilson RG, Sleugh B. Western snowberry (*Symphoricarpos occidentalis*) con-

[11] Masters RA, Sheley RL. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants.

[12] Bailey AW, Irving BD, Fitzgerald RD. Regeneration of woody species following burning and grazing in Aspen Parkland. Journal of Range Management. 1990;**43**:212-215

[13] Smart AJ, Daniel J, Bruns K, Held J. Browsing of Western snowberry by goats and sheep.

[14] Smart AJ, Troelstup NH Jr, Bruns KW, Daniel JA, Held JE. Western snowberry response

[15] Sahlu T, Dawson LJ, Gipson TA, Hart SP, Merkel RC, Puchala R, et al. ASAS centennial paper: Impact of animal science research on United States goat production and predic-

[16] Frost RA, Launchbaugh KL. Prescription grazing for rangeland weed management: A

[17] Fishel F. Plants poisonous to livestock. Bulletin G-4970 University of Missouri Extension [18] MacDiarmid BN. Cattle dung patch 3. Distribution and rate of decay of dung patches and their influence on grazing behavior. Journal of the British Grassland Society.

[19] Marten GC, Donker JD. Selective grazing induced by animal excreta I. Evidence of occurrence and superficial remedy. Journal of Dairy Science. 1964;**47**:773-776

to fire and goat browsing. Sheep and Goat Research Journal. 2007;**22**:20-25

tions for the future. Journal of Animal Science. 2009;**87**:400-418

new look at an old tool. Rangelands. 2003;**25**:43-47

trol with aminopyralid and metsulfuron. Weed Technology. 2011;**25**:616-619 [10] McCarty MK. Control of Western snowberry in Nebraska. Weeds. 1967;**15**:130-133

spring burning. American Midland Naturalist. 1993;**130**:106-115

Journal of Range Management. 2001;**54**:502-517

Sheep and Goat Research Journal. 2006;**21**:1-5

**52**:273-288

217-231

2013;**6**:48-59

1972;**27**:48-54

of Plant Science. 1995;**75**:935-940
