Cows with young Perry pear trees. (Ben Raskin)

Silvopastoral Agroforestry – Perry pears and timber with mob grazed young dairy stock (United Kingdom)

Silvopastoral Agroforestry – Perry pears and timber with mob grazed young dairy stock

Description

Silvopastoral Agroforestry in a natural farmed environment – This is an alley cropping system with rows of Perry pears and timber trees inter-planted with coppiced willow and alder. The pasture in between the rows is mob grazed with young dairy stock.

Background: The agroforestry system is part of a mixed farm of 630 hectares. 550 hectares are rented on a three generation tenancy. The farmer is the second generation. The trees are planted on the 80 hectares owned by the farmer. The annual rainfall for the region is approximatly 630mm per year with a typical temperate UK climate. The soil is heavy clay on a flat landscape.

The system: The field is 19 hectares. The trees are planted in rows which are 27 m apart. There is a main species in each row, planted at 10 m spacing. These are inter-planted with smaller trees, or species that will be coppiced/pollarded to maintain a small form. The main species are: Perry pear (a small pear that is a cross between Pyrus communis and its wild subsp. pyraster – used to make the alcoholic drink “Perry”). We have also some species planted for timber Quercus robur, Sorbus torminalis, Carpinus betula, Prunus avium. The inter-plant species are Salix various sp., Alnus glutinosa. These will be used either for animal fodder or for chipping and used as a mulch or for spreading on the land as soil health improver. There are also some Hippophae rhamnoides for human consumption. The alleys between the rows of trees are grazed by young dairy stock on a mob grazing rotational basis.

Aims: The aim is to improve soil and drainage in the field which is heavy clay. We hope to improve productivity but also have designed the system that we can grow crops in the future if we wanted to. The trees will also provide benefit to the cows through shelter and shade, and the inter-plants of willow and alder grow through diverse forage.

Tree protection: Fencing was our major challenge. There needed to be protection from the livestock but also from wildlife (in particular deer and hares). Our initial trial used individual guards and stakes but we have since fenced each side of each row with a single strand of electric fencing. This is working well.

Benefits: This is newly planted but already we are seeing improvement in the grass ley through our rotational grazing. Water quality into the nearby stream and infiltration improved and flooding should also improve. We have seen an immediate increase in wildlife with greater numbers of hares, raptors (including kestrels, red kites and buzzards), and butterflies. The farm manager likes the ability to mob graze, although the system was complicated to set up. It is too early to comment on further benefits at this stage.

Location

Location: Wiltshire, South West, United Kingdom

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -1.97754, 51.31708
  • -1.97754, 51.31708

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (0.19 km²)

In a permanently protected area?: No

Date of implementation: 2017

Type of introduction
Field before planting. (Ben Raskin)
Year 1 with trees before grazing. (Ben Raskin)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
  • improve animal welfare
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Yes - Silvo-pastoralism

  • Grazing land
    • Improved pastures
    Animal type: cattle - dairy and beef (e.g. zebu)
    Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced? Yes
    Products and services: meat, milk
      SpeciesCount
      cattle - dairy and beef (e.g. zebu)100
    • Forest/ woodlands
      • Tree plantation, afforestation: temperate continental forest plantation. Varieties: Mixed varieties
      Tree types (deciduous): n.a.
      Products and services: Timber, Fruits and nuts
    Water supply
    • rainfed
    • mixed rainfed-irrigated
    • full irrigation

    Purpose related to land degradation
    • prevent land degradation
    • reduce land degradation
    • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
    • adapt to land degradation
    • not applicable
    Degradation addressed
    • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)
    • physical soil deterioration - Pw: waterlogging
    SLM group
    • agroforestry
    • integrated crop-livestock management
    SLM measures
    • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
    • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

    Technical drawing

    Technical specifications
    The field has an area of 19 hectares with north to south rows of trees of up to 420m length and across a 440m field. The field is adjacent to stream and has no slope. The trees are planted in rows with a within row spacing of 10 m and between row spacing of 27 m . The main species planted is perry pear
    Author: Ben Raskin

    Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

    Calculation of inputs and costs
    • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 19 hectares; conversion factor to one hectare: 1 ha = 1 ha = 2.47 acres)
    • Currency used for cost calculation: British pound
    • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.73 British pound
    • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: Approx. £150
    Most important factors affecting the costs
    Type of tree, type of fencing and weather related impacts.
    Establishment activities
    1. Trench dug with tillage machinery to plant each row of trees (Timing/ frequency: Autumn)
    2. Tree standards (bought from tree nursery) planted by hand in trench spaces 2m apart (Timing/ frequency: Winter)
    3. Fencing installed by hand as single strand electric along either side of each row of trees (Timing/ frequency: Spring)
    4. Mulch added to base of trees using tractor to surpress weeds, provide fertiliser and keep moisture in soil (Timing/ frequency: Spring)
    Total establishment costs (estimation)
    14500.0
    Maintenance activities
    1. Mulching each year at base of trees (Timing/ frequency: Yearly (first 3 years))
    2. Strimming grass and weeds between trees where livestock are exluded from area by fencing (Timing/ frequency: Yearly (first 5 years))
    3. Light pruning or training by hand where required (Timing/ frequency: Yearly (first 5 years))
    Total maintenance costs (estimation)
    1500.0

    Natural environment

    Average annual rainfall
    • < 250 mm
    • 251-500 mm
    • 501-750 mm
    • 751-1,000 mm
    • 1,001-1,500 mm
    • 1,501-2,000 mm
    • 2,001-3,000 mm
    • 3,001-4,000 mm
    • > 4,000 mm
    Agro-climatic zone
    • humid
    • sub-humid
    • semi-arid
    • arid
    Specifications on climate
    n.a.
    Slope
    • flat (0-2%)
    • gentle (3-5%)
    • moderate (6-10%)
    • rolling (11-15%)
    • hilly (16-30%)
    • steep (31-60%)
    • very steep (>60%)
    Landforms
    • plateau/plains
    • ridges
    • mountain slopes
    • hill slopes
    • footslopes
    • valley floors
    Altitude
    • 0-100 m a.s.l.
    • 101-500 m a.s.l.
    • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
    • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
    • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
    • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
    • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
    • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
    • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
    Technology is applied in
    • convex situations
    • concave situations
    • not relevant
    Soil depth
    • very shallow (0-20 cm)
    • shallow (21-50 cm)
    • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
    • deep (81-120 cm)
    • very deep (> 120 cm)
    Soil texture (topsoil)
    • coarse/ light (sandy)
    • medium (loamy, silty)
    • fine/ heavy (clay)
    Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
    • coarse/ light (sandy)
    • medium (loamy, silty)
    • fine/ heavy (clay)
    Topsoil organic matter content
    • high (>3%)
    • medium (1-3%)
    • low (<1%)
    Groundwater table
    • on surface
    • < 5 m
    • 5-50 m
    • > 50 m
    Availability of surface water
    • excess
    • good
    • medium
    • poor/ none
    Water quality (untreated)
    • good drinking water
    • poor drinking water (treatment required)
    • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
    • unusable
    Water quality refers to: ground water
    Is salinity a problem?
    • Yes
    • No

    Occurrence of flooding
    • Yes
    • No
    Species diversity
    • high
    • medium
    • low
    Habitat diversity
    • high
    • medium
    • low

    Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

    Market orientation
    • subsistence (self-supply)
    • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
    • commercial/ market
    Off-farm income
    • less than 10% of all income
    • 10-50% of all income
    • > 50% of all income
    Relative level of wealth
    • very poor
    • poor
    • average
    • rich
    • very rich
    Level of mechanization
    • manual work
    • animal traction
    • mechanized/ motorized
    Sedentary or nomadic
    • Sedentary
    • Semi-nomadic
    • Nomadic
    Individuals or groups
    • individual/ household
    • groups/ community
    • cooperative
    • employee (company, government)
    Gender
    • women
    • men
    Age
    • children
    • youth
    • middle-aged
    • elderly
    Area used per household
    • < 0.5 ha
    • 0.5-1 ha
    • 1-2 ha
    • 2-5 ha
    • 5-15 ha
    • 15-50 ha
    • 50-100 ha
    • 100-500 ha
    • 500-1,000 ha
    • 1,000-10,000 ha
    • > 10,000 ha
    Scale
    • small-scale
    • medium-scale
    • large-scale
    Land ownership
    • state
    • company
    • communal/ village
    • group
    • individual, not titled
    • individual, titled
    Land use rights
    • open access (unorganized)
    • communal (organized)
    • leased
    • individual
    Water use rights
    • open access (unorganized)
    • communal (organized)
    • leased
    • individual
    Access to services and infrastructure
    health

    poor
    x
    good
    education

    poor
    x
    good
    technical assistance

    poor
    x
    good
    employment (e.g. off-farm)

    poor
    x
    good
    markets

    poor
    x
    good
    energy

    poor
    x
    good
    roads and transport

    poor
    x
    good
    drinking water and sanitation

    poor
    x
    good
    financial services

    poor
    x
    good

    Impacts

    Socio-economic impacts
    fodder production
    decreased
    x
    increased


    Slight improvement in productivity of grassland due to rotational grazing between the trees.

    product diversity
    decreased
    x
    increased


    Currently still too early for full pear harvest, yet in time the return with product diversification will be of great benefit to farm diversification and sustainability.

    Socio-cultural impacts
    recreational opportunities
    reduced
    x
    improved


    Visitors coming to learn about Agroforestry has provided an opportunity to engage the interested general public and share knowledge.

    Ecological impacts
    flood impacts
    increased
    x
    decreased


    Slight reduction in standing water during periods of high rainfall

    Off-site impacts

    Cost-benefit analysis

    Benefits compared with establishment costs
    Short-term returns
    very negative
    x
    very positive

    Benefits compared with maintenance costs
    Short-term returns
    very negative
    x
    very positive

    Technology very recently implemented so cost-benefit is still unknown. Currnetly not viewed negitivly, yet benefits are still to be understood.

    Climate change

    Gradual climate change
    seasonal temperature increase

    not well at all
    x
    very well
    Season: summer
    seasonal rainfall increase

    not well at all
    x
    very well
    Season: summer

    Adoption and adaptation

    Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
    • single cases/ experimental
    • 1-10%
    • 11-50%
    • > 50%
    Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
    • 0-10%
    • 11-50%
    • 51-90%
    • 91-100%
    Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
    • Yes
    • No
    To which changing conditions?
    • climatic change/ extremes
    • changing markets
    • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

    Conclusions and lessons learnt

    Strengths: land user's view
    • Change in grazing regime from large pasture to rotational grazing between tree lines has additional benefits for improved pasture and animal wealfare with less requirement to worm using antibiotics.
    • Initial observations of improved water infiltration due to better infiltration by trees rooting system
    Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
    • Future opportunity of land and business diversification
    • Increase in biodiversity evident already and would expect further improvements.
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
    • Tree loss due to weather extremes (i.e. loss of young tree stock in 2018 summer drought) Mulching, irrigation, earlier planting, improved placement of tree stock on edge of sub-soil slot where less soil drying occurs compared to centre of slot.
    • Perenial weed control poor using just wood chip mulch Increased strimming management of the growth around trees where livestock cannot reach due to fencing.
    • Time investment against other commitments (i.e. priority of broader farm systems when attention to new technology is required) Forward planning and improved communcation between the farm team is vital to ensure a sufficient amount of time is provided for attending to and learning about a new technology.
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
    • Overall costs against short-term return Secure funding to enable longer-term return.

    References

    Compiler
    • Alan Radbourne
    Editors
    • David Robinson
    • David Norris
    • Sabine Reinsch
    Reviewer
    • Ursula Gaemperli
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    Date of documentation: July 9, 2019
    Last update: Feb. 14, 2021
    Resource persons
    Full description in the WOCAT database
    Linked SLM data
    Documentation was faciliated by
    Institution Project
    This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International