Intensive Silvopastoral Systems: Economics and Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Public Policies

Chará, Julián; Rivera, Julián; Barahona, Rolando; Murgueitio, R Enrique; Deblitz, Claus; Reyes, Edmé Domínguez; Maurício, Rogério Martins; Molina, Juan José; Flores, Martha; Zuluaga, Andrés F.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69371-2_16

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, results indicate that surveyed farmers in the SPS farms group (n = 45) increased the size of the cattle herd (from 3 to 7 heads; p=0.26) and increased the number of calves (from 0.2 to 1.5; p=0.26) compared with farms with 'traditional' grazing SPS techniques (n = 99). This is consistent with previous studies reporting that integrating trees and grasses produces shade and reduces heat stress, thus reducing animal anxiety and providing higher quality, varied diets, which in turn have positive effects on cow fertility and milk production levels (Broom et al, 2013;Chará et al, 2017). Results also showed that such differences are greater between traditional farms and those with advanced SPS (n = 27) and that the last ones produce more on less land (Table 1; Figure S2).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Results from previous studies, usually performed at a small or pilot scale, indicate that SPS present positive results at the farm level in economic and environmental terms (Chará et al, 2017;Mancera et al, 2018). Meanwhile, Lerner et al (2017) highlight the capacity of SPS's role as a driver of deforestation or as a driver of forest regrowth depending on what land cover the SPS replaces (traditional livestock systems vs forests) and proposes both on-farm and larger-scale conservation strategies to avoid undesired land cover transitions and to achieve forest and biodiversity conservation goals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A deforestation-free path to scaling silvopastoral production systems

Castro-Núñez¹,

Buritica²,

González³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global community recognizes that silvopastoral systems (SPS), which are considered a form of sustainable land use, could reduce forest loss. Studies indicate that SPS can improve livelihoods, provide ecosystem services and act as carbon sinks. What has been missing from the literature, however, is how scaling SPS influences forest cover. Our research results from the Colombian Amazon point to possible unintended deforestation due to aggregated effects of farm-level changes in herd composition from broader SPS adoption with the absence of safeguards, appropriate incentives and government agencies devoted to implementing traceability of dairy and beef products to their deforestation-free origins. Our conclusions are drawn from surveying 144 livestock producers with traditional or SPS farms in Caquetá, one of the departments with the highest deforestation rates in Colombia. Land grabbing, in tandem with cattle pasture, is one of the major deforestation and conflict drivers in Colombia. We surveyed the farmers twice, both in 2016 and 2020, to determine the impact of SPS on herd composition. Our results show that surveyed SPS farmers reduced the number of male cattle and increased the number of lactating cows and calves in the herd. This suggests that these farmers specialize in producing milk, a move that constitutes a process of intensification that with the proper safeguards and incentives would unlikely broaden deforestation at the local scale. The availability of more calves and male cattle from SPS adoption, though, may exacerbate the drivers of deforestation because there is a risk that these extra calves and males would be moved to new pastures at the forest border, where they can be fattened as a source of beef. Our findings, as such, warrant a further investigation into the risk of unintended deforestation from scaling SPS and on how to mitigate that risk to make the process deforestation-free.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

A deforestation-free path to scaling silvopastoral production systems

Castro-Núñez¹,

Buritica²,

González³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several reports on the nutritional and productivity benefits of including L. leucocephala in the diet of grazing beef and dairy cattle (51)(52)(53)(54)(55). However, the current study is the first to report the benefits of including L. diversifolia in the diet of grazing cattle in Latin America.…”

Section: Nutrient Intake and Digestibilitymentioning

confidence: 77%

Nutritional Quality, Voluntary Intake and Enteric Methane Emissions of Diets Based on Novel Cayman Grass and Its Associations With Two Leucaena Shrub Legumes

Gaviria

Bolívar

Rosenstock³

et al. 2020

Front. Vet. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane (CH 4 ) emissions from enteric fermentation in cattle are an important source of greenhouse gases, accounting for about 40% of all agricultural emissions. Diet quality plays a fundamental role in determining the magnitude of CH 4 emissions. Specifically, the inclusion of feeds with high digestibility and nutritional value have been reported to be a viable option for reducing CH 4 emissions and, simultaneously, increase animal productivity. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of the nutritional composition and voluntary intake of diets based on tropical forages upon CH 4 emissions from zebu steers. Five treatments (diets) were evaluated: Cay1: Urochloa hybrid cv. Cayman (harvested after 65 days of regrowth: low quality); Cay2: cv. Cayman harvested after 45 days of regrowth; CayLl: cv. Cayman + Leucaena leucocephala; CayLd: cv. Cayman + Leucaena diversifolia; Hay: Dichantium aristatum hay as a comparator of common naturalized pasture. For each diet representing different levels of intensification (naturalized pasture, improved pasture, and silvopastoral systems), CH 4 emissions were measured using the polytunnel technique with four zebu steers housed in individual chambers. The CH 4 accumulated was monitored using an infrared multigas analyzer, and the voluntary forage intake of each animal was calculated. Dry matter intake (DMI, % of body weight) ranged between 0.77 and 2.94 among diets offered. Emissions of CH 4 per kg of DMI were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in Cay1 (60.4 g), compared to other treatments. Diets that included Leucaena forage legumes had generally higher crude protein contents and higher DMI. Cay1 and Hay which had low protein content and digestibility had a higher CH 4 emission intensity (per unit live weight gain) compared to Cay2, CayLl and CayLd. Our results suggest that grass consumed after a regrowth period of 45 days results in lower CH 4 emissions intensities compared to those observed following a regrowth period of 65 days. Diets with Leucaena inclusion showed Gaviria-Uribe et al.Methane From Cattle Tropical-Forages advantages in nutrient intake that are reflected in greater live weight gains of cattle. Consequently, the intensity of the emissions generated in the legume-based systems were lower suggesting that they are a good option for achieving the emission reduction goals of sustainable tropical cattle production.

show abstract

“…Lerner et al (2017) highlight the capacity of SPS to drive either deforestation or forest regrowth depending on what land cover the SPS replace (traditional livestock systems vs. forests) and the conservation strategies in place to avoid undesired land use changes. Results from previous studies, usually performed at a small or pilot scale, indicate that SPS present positive farm‐level results in economic and environmental terms (Chará et al, 2017; Mancera et al, 2018). Results also indicate that SPS increase production outputs, improve cow fertility and drive farm‐level changes in herd composition and size (Nahed‐Toral, Valdivieso‐Pérez, Aguilar‐Jiménez, Cámara‐Cordova, & Grande‐Cano, 2013; Sierra‐Montoya, Barahona‐Rosales, & Ruiz‐Cortés, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%