Category: Beef and Sheep
By: Claus Deblitz
Silvopastoral Systems give proof of their benefits to livestock, environment and economics
Many traditional livestock production systems in Latin America - based on grass monoculture - tend to deplete natural resources in a process of continuous degradation. As an alternative, silvopastoral systems combine livestock production with rotational grazing using different pastures, forages, fodder shrubs and timber trees as parts of the same system.
Taking in account the globally fast growing demand for food, especially for meat, and at the same time the growing awareness of the vital importance to preserve bio-diversity and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, silvopastoral systems are meant to produce a triple-win situation with regard to animal welfare, the environment economics.
The shade of the trees reduces the heat stress for the cattle so they graze more and produce more meat, respectively milk. Pasture and shrubs can be used as forages, trees can be attached to timber production as well. Soil fertility is improved by better recycling of nutrients such as nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus and by increasing organic matter. Furthermore, carbon sequestration by trees reduces CO2 emissions and thereby performs an important function in climate protection.
The agri benchmark Network, CIPAV, FEDEGAN, World Animal Protection and Good Food Futures Ltd have joined efforts to evaluate these different aspects of sustainability running an integrated analysis. The analysis was based on data of six farms, representing different regions and different production systems in Colombia. For each farm, two scenarios were defined: conventional grazing (before the adoption of SPS) and the SPS scenarios. These case studies cover a time period of ten years or more.
| Case # | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| |
| Production system | Beef | Dual | Tropical | Tropical | Cattle | Dual |
| |
| Reference year | 2013 | 2013 | 2013 | 2014 | 2014 | 2015 |
| |
| Number of animals | Baseline | 71 (2) | 35 (1) | 230 (1) | 108 (1) | 7 (2) | 70 (1) |
|
| SPS | 710 (2) | 58 (1) | 307 (1) | 148 (1) | 85 (2) | 181 (1) |
| |
| Feed production | Baseline | 3 | 14 | 24 | 40 | 2 | 5 |
|
| SPS | 25 | 16 | 28 | 28 | 11 | 25 |
| |
| Productivity | Baseline | 370 (2) | 2.346 (1) | 2.644 (1) | 2.774 (1) | 342 (2) | 872 (1) |
|
| SPS | 614 (2) | 3.084 (1) | 3.010 (1) | 4.240 (1) | 685 (2) | 2.400 (1) |
| |
| Farm net income | Baseline | -25.277 | -1.251 | -50.749 | -76.192 | -27.082 | 8.633 |
|
| SPS | 192.444 | 43.058 | 240.850 | 155.640 | 30.995 | 97.212 |
| |
| CO2 Emissions | - 9.3% | + / - | - 12% | - 48% | - 9.5% | - 80% |
| |
Units | |||||||||
Number of animals | (1) productive cows | (2) sold/year |
|
|
| ||||
Feed production | t dry matter/ha |
|
|
|
|
| |||
Productivity | (1) kg /cow&year | (2) gr/day |
|
|
| ||||
Farm net income | USD / year |
|
|
|
|
| |||
Results show that silvopastoral systems represent a valid alternative for livestock production, fulfilling most of the current criteria for sustainability. The downsides of the systems are a) the investment and capital need for establishment (water installations and troughs, fences, establishment costs for grasses, shrubs and trees) and b) the know-how to operate the systems. Here, national governments and international donors can play an important role to assist the establishment of SPS.
You find more information on the methodological approach, data sources and detailed results in Briefing Paper 17/2 of the agri benchmark Beef and Sheep Network.
Free for download:
Measuring sustainability on cattle ranches – Silvopastoral systems
(pdf-document, 3.222 KB)