Regional Final Paper

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 13

Running Head: SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 1

Silvopasture and Modern Agriculture

Brendan Branca

Stockton University
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 2

ABSTRACT
There are many flaws with our society’s modern method of agriculture and farming. While current
methods are necessary to meet the mass production and commercial needs of our population, issues
such as pollution and poor quality of product are threats that must be acknowledged. Agroforestry is
a field of study devoted to the combination trees with livestock, crops, or both. Within agroforestry,
silvopasture refers to the combination of trees and cattle on farmland. There are many benefits to the
practice of silvopasture which include increased nutrient retention in soils, decreased pollution from
farmlands, improved quality of meat and crops, and potential economic gain. This method of farming
is an age-old practice which is now being rediscovered and implemented within certain areas of our
society.
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 3

INTRODUCTION

Our modern agricultural system is a reflection of the progression of our society. Since our
population has risen so high, mass production and commercial methods of farming have become
necessary in order to keep up. While industrial methods of agriculture have become the most common
practices in our modern world, they are also the cause of other important issues, including different forms
of pollution. There are outdated methods of agriculture which challenge the modern perspective of the
way crops and livestock should be managed, and offer significant benefits in the right conditions.
Agroforestry is a field of study which focuses on the combination of different types of trees and livestock
or crops in grazing or farmland. This practice presents an opportunity to increase land productivity as
well as economic gain by combining income from crop or animal production and forestry on the same
land. In addition, agroforestry has the potential to introduce environmental benefits such as increased
diversity of plants and animals, nutrient recycling, erosion control, and carbon sequestration
(Nyakatawa, et al., 2012). “Agroforestry plays an important role in achieving both economic as well as
ecological needs of the society,” (Vijay, 2017).

There are different types of agroforestry practices, some of which date back centuries. This
research paper focuses on three major beneficial values of silvopasture; mitigation and reduction of
greenhouse gases as well as other pollutants which threaten the environment, the economic benefits and
maximum production value of silvopasture, and the quality of life as well as the quality of product for
livestock and crops. In the field of agroforestry, silvopastoral systems provide enhanced soil protection,
increased long-term income, and better quality of product due to the simultaneous production of livestock
and different tree types.

BACKGROUND

Silvopasture is a practice which was used many years before mass production and commercial
farming became necessary in today’s world. A significantly smaller population allowed farmers to use
methods which were more efficient and made more sense for the needs of society at the time. The
combination of trees/shrubs with different crops, livestock, or both, offered a variety of benefits such as
increased forage production, nutrient recycling in soil as a result of tree roots in deep soil layers. This
method developed as a historical European land management practice, taking different forms based on
location, conditions, or specific needs.

Although silvopasture can be implemented in a variety of beneficial ways, it is not embraced by


modern commercial farmers. Expert advice in the Midwestern region of the U.S. is to separate trees and
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 4

livestock, rather than combine them (Mayerfield, et al., 2016). Yet the benefits of silvopasture are worth
being explored and adopted. “Silvopasture systems promote multiple-use management of the land under
an environmentally friendly cropping system whereby certain types of wildlife can thrive,” (Grado, et
al., 2001).

ENHANCED SOIL PROTECTION

Silvopasture is much less practiced in modern times, since industrial and commercial methods of
agriculture have taken over, and large companies are driven to focus solely on mass production. Even so,
there are those who see potential in the field of agroforestry, specifically silvopastoral systems, and many
studies have been done to assess the positive capabilities of silvopasture. One of the main advantages of
silvopastoral systems is the effect that they have on soil. It is widely known that modern agricultural and
commercial systems produce a great deal of nutrient rich run-off which finds its way into nearby bodies
of water. “On site, soil erosion causes losses of water, soil, organic matter and nutrients, leading to a
reduction of soil quality and crop productivity; off-site consequences include siltation of the water
reservoirs and flash floods, with the risk of water contamination, “ (Yadav, 2014). The run-off can
consist of cow manure and different fertilizers, among other nutrient rich substances. This type of
pollution is called non-point source pollution, and it is the main cause of eutrophication in bodies of
water. Eutrophication is a destructive process which takes place as a result of over-oxygenation in a body
of water, then causes excessive and overly dense plant growth, and results in the death of animal life due
to the lack of oxygen (Scannone, 2016). There are many harmful effects that happen as a result of
pollution, but eutrophication is a growing threat and has been increasing in a positive correlation with the
growth of industrial farming and agriculture.

Figure 1. Graph illustrating increased symptoms of eutrophication over time. (N.N. Rabalais, R.J Diaz, et al.2010)
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 5

MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE

Modern agricultural methods contribute to climate change on a global scale. The production of
various greenhouse gasses due to farmland use has increased alongside the growth of our population.
This can primarily be attributed to carbon dioxide, which is released during soil cultivation, methane,
which is associated with cattle and livestock manure, and nitrous oxide, which is produced by fertilizer
and manure.

Canada’s prairie region is a large contributor of greenhouse gasses. “The most recent estimate
of GHG emissions from agriculture in 2012 in Canada ranged from 56 (Environment Canada, 2013) to
72 Mt. (megatons) CO2-eq (carbon dioxide equivalent) per annum (FAO, 2014),” (Baah-Acheamfour et
al., 2016). Agroforestry practices are common in Canada and have been proven to reduce net greenhouse
gas emissions for a variety of reasons; the ability of trees to sequester atmospheric carbon in the soil,
decreasing soil temperature and increasing water content which in turn reduces the evaporation from soil
and hence reduces GHG emissions, as well as others. Although agroforestry systems do not completely
stop the escape of greenhouse gasses, they mitigate them much more efficiently than traditional treeless
systems. “While emissions of total CO2 were silvopasture > hedgerow > shelterbelt, soils under
silvopasture had 5% lower heterotrophic respiration, 15% greater CH4 uptake, and 44% lower N2O
emission as compared with the other two agroforestry systems. Overall, the GWPm of greenhouse gas
emissions was greater in hedgerow (88) and shelterbelt (85) than in the silvopasture system
(76 kg CO2 ha− 1),” (Baah-Achemfour et al., 2016).

Agroforestry implementation in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. has been shown to mitigate
climate change by enhancing forest carbon stores. After long term use and management, a general
increase in large tree densities with stand age and positive relationships between stand stocking level and
live tree carbon stores was observed (D’Amato, et al., 2011). This is further proof of the positive
qualities and effects of silvopasture, and the potential to reduce the negative effects of climate
change.

INCREASED LONG TERM INCOME

Aside from reducing the harmful effects of different types of pollution, silvopastoral systems
have the potential to increase economic yield. While mass production systems tend to focus solely on one
crop, or just livestock, silvopastoral systems provide a combination of vegetation and meat yield, and
have also been proven to improve the quality of each. There are several reasons why silvopasture is
thought to be economically efficient and productive. Improved water use efficiency by shaded grass, as
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 6

well as increased water availability by hydraulic lift through trees, help to increase forage production
beneath trees, compared to that of open pastures. (S.A. Debruyne, et al.,2011). Greater forage production
was observed at sites under moderate tree cover than in the open or under heavy tree cover in field
study experiments done in Virginia (Buergler et al. 2005) and West Virginia (Belesky, 2005). Also,
financial analyses of silvopasture systems in the southern U. S. show consistently improved
profitability compared to traditional tree plantations or pasture systems (Garett et al., 2004). There is a
great deal of evidence to support the idea that silvopastoral practices can increase forage yield, and in
turn, economic yield. Since agroforestry/silvopasture combines the management of trees, livestock, and
crops in the same agricultural field, a variety of products can be harvested and sold, and the quality of
these products are often increased by the practice. This results in increased long term economic
efficiency, if the system is managed correctly and the right species of trees are grown for the specific
conditions.

TAXES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

While silvopasture offers promise in increased forage yield, and other agricultural products,
there is another economic incentive. Silvopasture provides environmental benefits, such as the
reduction of greenhouse gasses, and inhibition of destructive processes such as eutrophication, and
these benefits are marketable. Many people care deeply for the environment, and find great value in
ways to protect it. In areas that are heavily affected by issues such as eutrophication, some residents are
well aware of the negative environmental effects, and would be willing to pay to help resolve them.

A survey was taken in the Lake Okeechobee watershed area in Florida, to estimate consumers’
willingness to pay for public goods, such as improved water quality, decreased eutrophication,
decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and increased wildlife protection, which could potentially be
achieved by adopting silvopastoral practices. In short, the survey was taken to gain information on local
residents’ opinions on these issues, and the results showed that people were willing to pay for these
services. “The results from a random parameter logit model reveal that households would pay US$30.24–
71.17 per year for 5 years for these environmental benefits. These estimates provide a basis for
formulating policies to promote silvopasture practices in the Lake Okeechobee watershed,” (Shrestha et
al., 2004). The fact that people would be willing to pay for increased environmental protection/services
through the implementation of silvopastoral practices is an indication that environmental quality is very
important to most people, and businesses/farmers that could provide these services would benefit from the
revenue from the community.

QUALITY OF PRODUCT
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 7

Finally, silvopastoral systems improve the quality of life for livestock, which contributes to
healthier and higher quality meat, and less deaths among livestock due to heat stress. Increasing
temperatures associated with global climate change threaten to disrupt agricultural systems such as beef
production (Foust; Headlee, 2017). Since open/treeless pastures do not provide much shade for cattle,
many cows and other species of livestock are forced to endure extreme heat stress, which leads to a
variety of different issues. Heat stress specifically can have both short-term effects on livestock
physiology and behavior, as well as long-term impacts on livestock performance (Nienaber and
Hahn 2007). Some of the negative effects of heat stress on cattle include; increased secretion of
glucocorticoid and catecholamine hormones, elevated respiratory rates, reduction in feed intake, lower
overall body weight, diminished milk production, and poor beef quality. This is not to mention the
cattle that simply die due to heat stress. Silvopasture has been shown to have positive effects on these
issues.

SILVOPASTURE AROUND THE WORLD

Silvopasture, or any type of agroforestry practice, can be goal oriented, and manipulated to
achieve a specific outcome. Silvopastoral systems have been implemented in 8 different regions around
the world; Misiones and Corrientes provinces, Argentina; La Pampa province, Argentina; northwestern
Minas Gerais, Brazil; the Aysén region of Patagonia, Chile; the North Island of New Zealand; the
Southeast United States; Paraguay; and Uruguay. Comparing the methods and practices of each has
illustrated the ways in which silvopasture can be manipulated to suit the needs of specific conditions.
Each location in which a silvopastoral system was implemented experiences different topographical
features, soil types, ecological properties, and climate conditions. This required the use of different tree
species, and different planting patterns, to ensure the success of the system in each region. “Some
countries use native trees and existing forests; some use plantations, particularly of exotic species.
Natural forest silvopasture systems generally add livestock in extensive systems, to capture the benefits
of shade, forage, and income diversification without much added inputs,” (Cubbage, et al., 2012).
Silvopastoral systems in the southeast U.S. typically incorporate pines with warm and cool season
grasses and cattle. Trees are planted in a row-fashion which includes alleys, allowing sunlight to
penetrate (Cubbage, et al., 2012). In the northwestern Minas Gerais region of Brazil, conditions are
quite different. The region is covered in a savannah like ecosystem, which makes up 37% of state
territory. The Companhia Mineira de Metais (CMM), which controls Brazil’s largest agrosilvopastoral
system, must use different methods to ensure the efficiency and success of their system, such as
growing hybrid and eucalypt clones for charcoal and lumber production associated with rice in the first
year, soybeans in the second year, and with perennial pasture grasses for cattle grazing and fattening
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 8

starting in the third year until the eleventh year (Cubbage, et al., 2012). These are just two examples of
how silvopastoral systems can be implemented in different regions and oriented towards specific goals.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT

While silvopasture offers many benefits, there are always pros and cons involved with any
method or technique. Some negative aspects of silvopasture include; increased and more intensive
management of land, economic loss in some cases, nutrient competition between trees and crops,
production of substances which inhibit germination or growth, and other potential issues.

More research must be done in the field of agroforestry to assess these issues, and this research
will take time. There is not enough convincing evidence to completely transform the agricultural
methods of our society, and there are many potential conflicts that could result in negative results due
to silvopastoral practices if they are implemented incorrectly. “The literature on silvopastures is limited
and animal performance comparisons between silvopastures with different tree species are lacking,
“(Fannon, et al., 2017). For example, pastures are the typical and common form of land use in
Appalachia. It is thought that silvopastures have the potential to improve the region’s economic and
environmental conditions by diversifying farm production and increasing conservation benefits, as well
as increasing animal welfare and productivity. However, limited knowledge of these systems, their site-
specific management requirements, and economic potential, have constrained adoption of silvopastures
in the region (Fannon, et al., 2017).

These problems are a necessary risk of the implementation of silvopasture, and imply that more
research should be devoted to this field before it is adopted on a national or global scale. Regardless,
these issues are not comparable to the major issues of industrial and commercial agriculture, and should
not deter one from realizing the positive potential of silvopasture.

CASE STUDY: NUTRIENT RUN-OFF IN FLORIDA

In Florida, eutrophication due to runoff from pasturelands is a major issue, particularly


phosphorous runoff. “Cattle ranches and croplands are an environmental threat to water quality due to
nutrient loading and sediment toxicity and are impacting the natural systems in the Everglades, and
interfering with their restoration efforts,” (Nair, et al., 2017). In one case study, it was hypothesized that
tree incorporation in pasture lands could help to enhance the storage of phosphorous, and other nutrients,
in the soil, rather than flow into nearby bodies of water. This would increase nutrient abundance and
quality in the soil, as well as inhibit the effects of the pollution; mainly eutrophication. “Studies on
tropical agroforestry systems in nutrient-depleted soils have demonstrated the capacity of deep rooted
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 9

trees to absorb nutrients that have leached below the rooting zone of agronomic crops, and recycle
these nutrients through litterfall and rootfall in the crop root zone, thus improving the nutrient-use
efficiency in the system as a whole,” (Lehmann et al. 1999; Buresh et al. 2004). Four different
silvopastoral systems were implemented in four different counties in Florida; Alachua, Suwannee,
Manatee, and Osceola. The first two of these counties sit on Utisols, and the latter two are on
Spodosols. The “safety-net” concept of trees applies to the ability of woody species to recycle nutrients
in soil, largely since tree roots extend deeply into soil horizons, and through leaching, recycle these
nutrients where they would have otherwise escaped into nearby bodies of water in the form of
pollution. Not only does this process stop eutrophication, but it also increases the quality of soil. After
analyzing and comparing the results of nutrient content in the soils of treeless pastures with that of
silvopastoral systems, it was concluded that the capacity of the soil to store additional phosphorous was
lower in treeless pasture sites than in the silvopastoral sites.

Figure 2 Figure 3

Figure 2.Water-soluble P (WSP) concentrations by depth in the silvopasture and treeless pasture sites in Osceola and Manatee counties
featuring Spodosols.(Michel, et al., 2007)

Figure 3. Water-soluble P (WSP) concentrations by depth in the silvopasture and treeless pasture sites in Alachua and Suwannee counties
featuring Ultisols.(Michel, et al., 2007)

CASE STUDY: EFFECTS OF TREE SHADE ON CATTLE

Research was done to examine the differences in behavior of cattle in treeless pastures, and
silvopasture conditions. The objective of this research was to compare cattle behavior in these two
different settings, and relate those differences to microclimatic conditions, and forage quality and
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 10

quantity. Ultimately, the goal of the study was to quantify the utilization of shade trees by beef cattle
when exposed to the intense summer heat of Arkansas. Heat stress is a significant issue and can have
negative effects on cattle in a variety of ways. “Without proper management techniques, heat stress can
hinder livestock production, both biologically and economically,” (Nardone, et al., 2017). Results from
the study showed that cattle utilized the landscape more evenly in the silvopasture versus the open-
pasture and this difference was mainly attributed to reduced solar radiation recorded in the silvopasture.
Grazing was the dominant behavior in the silvopasture while loafing was dominant in the open-pasture.
Shade present in silvopasture appeared to reduce heat stress for cattle grazing during warm-weather
portions of the year (Foust, et al., 2017). These results suggest that practicing agroforestry in the form
of silvopasture can do many great things for the cattle being managed, not only affecting the quality of
beef production, but also improving the quality of life for cattle, which satisfies ethical and moral
concerns. “With beef production losses due to heat stress estimated to be $87.0 million in the USA (St-
Pierre et al. 2003) and the projected growth in the global consumption of livestock products from the
early 1990s to 2020 (Delgado et al. 2001), the use of natural tree shade could be an increasingly
important and cost-effective method for mitigating production losses and meeting market demand
under a changing climate,” (Foust et al., 2017).

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN NEW JERSEY

In New Jersey, agroforestry could be implemented in a variety of ways which could potentially
improve environmental quality for different watershed areas and bodies of water, as well as increased
economic and agricultural production. Although pastures which include livestock and cattle are less
common in New Jersey and more prominent in areas such as Lehigh Valley or Lancaster, New Jersey is
known as the Garden State, since so many crops are cultivated and harvested in state each year. As of
2017, the state has 9,000 farms covering 720,000 acres. Sales generated in 2015 totaled $1.043 billion.
Approximately 9,100 acres of blueberries and 3,000 acres of cranberries are harvested annually
(Department of Agriculture, 2017). Agroforestry has the potential to be implemented in New Jersey in
the form of silviculture, which refers to the combination of trees and crops on farmland. The amount of
fertilizer that is used to manage and support all these crops is massive, and run off of this fertilizer
pollutes nearby bodies of water. As well as fertilizer run off, greenhouse gasses are produced as a result
of industrial farming techniques.

In conclusion, if these systems are implemented and managed properly, there is a potential to
stimulate economic growth in New Jersey, as well as provide improved environmental safety while
increasing the quality of crops harvested in state. While further research is necessary, attention should
be directed towards adopting agroforestry practices in New Jersey.
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 11

REFERENCES

Baah-Acheamfour, Mark. Bork, Edward W. Carlyle, Cameron N. Chang, Scott X. Lim, Sang-

Sun. (2016). Forest and grassland cover types reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from

agricultural soils. Science of the Total Environment. 571, 1115-1127.

Cubbage, F., Balmelli, G., Bussoni, A. et al. (2012). Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in

eight regions of the world. Agroforestry Systems.86(3), 303-314.

D’Amato, Anthony., Bradford, JohnB., Fraver, Shawn, Palik, Brian J. (2011). Forest

management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: Insights from long-term

silviculture experiments. Forest Ecology and Management. 262(5), 803-816.

Department of Agriculture. (2017). NJ Farm Facts. http://jerseyfresh.nj.gov/facts/

Fannon, A.G., Fike, J.H., Greiner, S.P.m Feldhake, C.M., Wahlberg, M.A. (2017). Hair

sheep performance in a mid-stage deciduous Appalachian silvopasture. Agroforestry

Systems. 83(2), 189-200.

Foust, A.M., Headlee, W.L. (2017). Modeling shade tree use by beef cattle as a function of black

globe temperature and time of day. International Journal of Biometeorology. 61(12), 2217-

2227.

Grado, S.C., Hovermale, C.H., st. Louis, D.G., (2001). A financial analysis of a silvopastoral system

in southern Mississippi. Agroforestry Systems. 53 (3), 313-322.

Karki, Uma. Goodman, Mary S. (2010). Cattle distribution and behavior in southern -pine

Silvopasture versus open-pasture. Agroforestry Systems. 782(2), 159-168.

Mayerfeld, D., Rickenbach, M. & Rissman, A. (2016). Overcoming history: attitudes of resource
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 12

Professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in southwest Wisconsin. Agroforestry Systems.

90(5), 723-736.

Michel, GA., Nair, V.D., & Nair, P.K.R. (2007). Silvopasture for reducing phosphorous loss from

subtropical sandy soils. Plant and Soil. 297(2), 267-276.

Nair, Vimala D., Haile, Solomon G., Michele, Gerard-Alain, Nair, P.K.Ramachandran. (2007).

Environmental quality improvement of agricultural lands through silvopasture in southeastern

United States. Soils and Plant Nutrition. 64(5).

Nyakatawa, Ermson, Z., Mays, David A., Naka, Kozma, Bukenya, James O. (2012). Carbon, nitrogen,

and phosphorous dynamics in a loblolly pine-goat silvopasture system in the Southeast USA.

Agroforestry Systems. 86(2), 129-140.

N.N. Rabalais, R.J. Diaz et al. (2010). Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia.

Biogeosciences. 7, 585-619.

Scannone, Francesca. (2016). What is eutrophication? Causes, effects, control. Retrieved from

http://www.eniscuola.net/en/2016/11/03/what-is-eutrophication-causes-effects-and-control/

Shrestha, Ram K., Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. (2004). Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture

Practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecological Economics.

49(3), 349-359.

Vijay, D., Gupta, S.K., Mishra, M. (2017). Seed yield and quality enhancement of pollarded subabul

(Leucaena lecuocephala) by nutrient supplementation. Agroforestry Systems. 91(4), 613-621.

Yadav, R.P., Sharma, Pawan, Arya, Swarm Lata, Panwar, Pankaj. (2014). Acacia nilotica-based

silvopastoral systems for resource conservation and improved productivity from degraded
SILVOPASTURE AND MODERN AGRICULTURE 13

lands of the Lower Himalayas. Agroforestry Systems. 88(5), 851-863.

You might also like