AbstractGrazing management and stocking strategy decisions involve the manipulation of grazing intensity, grazing frequency, and timing of grazing to meet specific objectives for pasture sustainability and economic livestock production. Although there are numerous stocking systems used by stakeholders, these methods may be broadly categorized as either continuous or some form of rotational stocking. In approximately 30 published experiments comparing continuous vs. rotational stocking, there was no difference in liveweight gain per animal between stocking methods in 66% of studies. There was no difference in gain per hectare between methods in 69% of studies, although for gain per hectare the choice of fixed or variable stocking rate methodology affected the proportion (92% for fixed; 50% for variable). Despite these experimental results showing limited instances of difference between rotational and continuous stocking, rotational strategies (e.g., “mob stocking” or “regenerative grazing”) have received what appears to be unmerited acclaim for use for livestock production. Many proposed “mob stocking” or “regenerative grazing” systems are based on philosophies similar to high intensity-low frequency stocking, including provision for >60 d of rest period from grazing. In addition, grazing management practitioners and stakeholders have voiced and proposed major positive benefits from rotational stocking, “mob stocking”, or “regenerative grazing” for soil health attributes, carbon sequestration, and ecosystem services, without experimental evidence. The perceptions and testimonials supporting undefined stocking systems and methods have potential to mislead practitioners and result in economic disservices. Thus, we suggest that scientists, extension-industry professionals, and producers seek replicated experimental data as the basis for predicting outcomes of grazing decisions.