Grassland production systems contribute 40% to Australia’s gross agricultural production value and utilise >50% of its land area. Across this area, diverse systems exist, but these can be broadly classified into four main production systems: (i) pastoral grazing, mainly of cattle at low intensity (i.e. <0.4 dry sheep equivalents/ha) on relatively unimproved native rangelands in the arid and semi-arid regions of northern and central Australia; (ii) crop–livestock systems in the semi-arid zone where livestock graze a mixture of pastures and crops that are often integrated; (iii) high-rainfall, permanent pasture zone in the coastal hinterland and highlands; and (iv) dairy systems covering a broad range of environments and production intensities. A notable trend across these systems has been the decline in sheep numbers and the proportion of income from wool, with beef cattle or sheep meat increasingly important. Although there is evidence that most of these systems have lifted production efficiencies over the past 30 years, total factor productivity growth (i.e. change in output relative to inputs) has failed to match the decline in terms of trade. This has renewed attention on how research and development can help to increase productivity. These industries also face increasing scrutiny to improve their environmental performance and develop sustainable production practices. In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of grassland production systems, we propose and explore in detail a range of practices and innovations that will move systems to new or improved states of productivity or alter efficiency frontiers. These include: filling gaps in the array of pastures available, either through exploring new species or improving the adaptation and agronomic characteristics of species currently sown; overcoming existing and emerging constraints to pasture productivity; improving livestock forage-feed systems; and more precise and lower cost management of grasslands. There is significant scope to capture value from the ecological services that grasslands provide and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. However, large reductions in pasture research scientist numbers (75–95%) over the past 30 years, along with funding limitations, will challenge our ability to realise these potential opportunities.

Grassland scientists and farmers are increasingly faced with emerging new technologies and information systems that have been primarily developed in engineering sciences, in particular, precision agriculture, remote sensing, geographic information and biotechnology. Judgment upon whether the implementation of any of these technologies may be beneficial in economic and ecological respects is challenging, especially to those who have to make on-farm decisions. New technologies have been applied on grassland only partially and with some delay compared with arable land. However, as we will show here, there is scope for successful implementation of new technologies in various climatic regions and for a wide range of applications. The paper presents the most important recent developments of new technologies in agriculture that have scope for application in grasslands. It defines the relevant terms and processes, provides examples of successful implementation, and discusses future directions and research needs.

The increasing demand for safe and nutritional dairy and beef products in a globalising world, together with the needs to increase resource use efficiency and to protect biodiversity, provide strong incentives for intensification of grassland and forage use. This paper addresses the question: ‘Does intensification of grassland and forage use lead to efficient, profitable and sustainable ecosystems?’ We present some notions about intensification of agricultural production, and then discuss the intensification of grassland-based dairy production in The Netherlands, Chile and New Zealand. Finally, we arrive at some conclusions.

External driving forces and the need to economise (the law of the optimum) provide strong incentives for intensification, that is, for increasing the output per unit surface area and labour. The three country cases illustrate that intensification of grassland use is a global phenomenon, with winners and losers. Winners are farmers who are able to achieve a high return on investments. Losers are small farmers who drop out of the business unless they broaden their income base. The relationship between intensification and environmental impact is complex. Within certain ranges, intensification leads to increased emissions of nutrients and greenhouse gases to air and use of water per unit surface area, but to decreased emissions when expressed per unit of product. The sustainability of a grassland-based ecosystem is ultimately defined by the societal appreciation of that system and by biophysical and socioeconomic constraints.

In conclusion, intensification may lead to more efficient and profitable and, thereby, more sustainable grassland ecosystems. This holds especially for those systems that are currently not sustainable because they are either underutilised and of low productivity or over-exploited and unregulated, and as long as the adapted systems meet societal and ecological constraints.

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) resulting from forage production contribute a major share to ‘livestock’s long shadow’. A 2-year field experiment was conducted at two sites in northern Germany to quantify and evaluate the carbon footprint of arable forage cropping systems (continuous silage maize, maize–wheat–grass rotation, perennial ryegrass ley) as affected by N-fertiliser type and N amount. Total GHG emissions showed a linear increase with N application, with mineral-N supply resulting in a steeper slope. Product carbon footprint (PCF) ranged between –66 and 119 kg CO₂eq/(GJ net energy lactation) and revealed a quadratic or linear response to fertiliser N input, depending on the cropping system and site. Thus, exploitation of yield potential while mitigating PCF was not feasible for all tested cropping systems. When taking credits or debts for carbon sequestration into account, perennial ryegrass was characterised by a lower PCF than continuous maize or the maize-based rotation, at the N input required for achieving maximum energy yield, whereas similar or higher PCF was found when grassland was assumed to have achieved soil carbon equilibrium. The data indicate potential for sustainable intensification when cropping systems and crop management are adapted to increase resource-use efficiency.

The Renewable Fuel Standard under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated the production of 60.5 GL (1 GL = 1 × 10⁹ L) of cellulosic biofuel by 2022. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) has been identified as a primary feedstock because it is a perennial adapted to a wide environmental range and produces high yields. Development of the cellulosic biofuel industry has been slow, one reason being a lack of available feedstock driven by lack of a developed market. Rather than considering it only as a dedicated biofuel feedstock, we examined switchgrass potential for both grazing and biofuel feedstock. In a series of experiments testing dry matter yield, grazing preference and animal bodyweight gain, switchgrass (cv. Alamo) was found to produce greater total yield (17.7 kg ha^–1) than 15 other warm-season perennial grasses, was the most preferred by stocker cattle in a grazing preference study, and produced good average daily gains in a grazing study (0.84–1.05 kg head^–1). These results demonstrate the potential of switchgrass for both grazing and biofuel feedstock. However, the feedstock price would need to increase above US$83 Mg^–1 before the economics of dedicated switchgrass feedstock production would surpass that of a combination of switchgrass grazing and feedstock production.

Phosphorus (P) fertilisers are important for productivity in many grassland systems. Phosphorus is a non-renewable and finite resource, and there are environmental and economic reasons for using P more effectively. We review the P balance of temperate pastures to identify the factors contributing to inefficient use of P fertiliser and discuss ways to improve P-balance efficiency. Immediate gains can be made by ensuring that P fertiliser inputs are managed to ensure that the plant-available P concentrations of soil do not exceed the minimum concentration associated with maximum pasture production. Unnecessarily high soil P concentrations are associated with greater potential for P loss to the wider environment, and with higher rates of P accumulation in soils that have a high P-sorption capacity. Soil microorganisms already play a crucial role in P cycling and its availability for pasture growth, but are not amenable to management. Consequently, plants with lower critical P requirements, particularly because of better root foraging, will be an important avenue for improving the P-balance efficiency of fertilised pastures. Traits such as long fine roots, branching, root hairs, and mycorrhizal associations all contribute to improved root foraging by pasture plants; some of these traits are amenable to breeding. However, progress in breeding for improved P efficiency in pasture plants has been minimal. It is likely that traditional plant breeding, augmented by marker-assisted selection and interspecific hybridisation, will be necessary for progress. There are practical limits to the gains that can be made by root foraging alone; therefore, plants that can ‘mine’ sparingly available P in soils by producing organic anions and phosphatases are also needed, as are innovations in fertiliser technology.

We present a bio-economic model by combining a process-based grassland simulation model with an economic decision model that accounts for income risks and yield quality. The model is used to examine optimal nitrogen (N) application rates in a grass–clover system in Switzerland under current and future climatic conditions. Results for present-day climatic conditions suggest that an increase in N inputs has positive effects on yields but also leads to higher yield variability, yield distributions more skewed to the left and therefore higher downside risks. As a result, accounting for farmers’ risk aversion in solving the optimisation problem leads to lower optimal N inputs. Simulations with a climate change scenario that predicts higher temperatures throughout the year and lower rainfall amounts during the growing season indicate higher yields, increasing yield variability, and changes in yield quality. By allowing herbage prices to vary as a function of yield quality, we find overall lower optimal N inputs and more marked effects of risk aversion on optimal N levels under climate change than under present conditions. However, disregarding yield quality in solving the optimisation problem gives higher optimal N inputs under future conditions.