Year 1 – Newly planted trees (Joe Hope)

Silvopastoral Agroforestry with Cattle (United Kingdom)

Description

A mixture of silvopastoral agroforestry approaches, including extensive and rotational cattle grazing around trees, provide benefits for biodiversity as well as leaf fodder for cattle, edible fruits and nuts, and wood fuel.

A first generation farmer with a mixed 36 hectare farm has been exploring the establishment of a regenerative silvopastoral agroforestry system.

Under this system the farm has been divided into four zones:
1. Cae mawr- 4.3 ha field. Formerly semi-improved permanent pasture with occasional scattered trees. The field has been divided with hedges into 8 rotational grazing units for Highland and Welsh White cattle. Hedges are of mixed edible fruit and nut varieties. The more distant hedges are composed of mixed native species.
2. Cae Ceirch – 5.4 ha field. Semi-improved permanent pasture with scattered trees and gorse bush. New planting of native species amongst the gorse, creating enclosures by planting native trees at a variety of densities. Electric fences have installed for protection and will be removed once the trees are large enough to withstand browsing. Additionally, field trees are being planted and protected with "cactus tree guards" (tubular sleeves of wire mesh with outer spikes).
3. Lower slopes - 3 ha area. Old pasture which has been grazed exceptionally lightly for a number of years. Allowing native trees, mostly birch, willow and hazel to naturally regenerate. Bracken and bramble have been controlled by pigs with the aim of rehabilitating towards a silvopastoral system. Some thinning of trees will be undertaken in places to achieve that end.
4. Riparian woodland - 1 ha area. Occasionally grazed by cattle on an "as needed" (ad hoc) basis.

The system aims to produce high quality nutrient-dense food, with the highest animal welfare, whilst simultaneously providing maximum biodiversity benefits.

New tree planting is protected by electric fencing comprising chestnut posts with ring insulators and poly wire, with cactus tree guards for individual trees.

The benefits include shelter and shade for animals, with increased diversity of forage. In time there will be a harvest of edible products for human consumption (fruits and nuts etc). And the system provides a variety of biodiversity benefits as well as a visual - aesthetic - improvement to the landscape.

Location

Location: Machynlleth, Wales, United Kingdom

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -3.86207, 52.56096

Spread of the Technology: applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

In a permanently protected area?: No

Date of implementation: 2018

Type of introduction
Field before planting (Joe Hope)

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 - Agro-silvopastoralism

  • Grazing land
    • Improved pastures
    Animal type: cattle - non-dairy beef
    Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced? No
    Products and services: meat
      SpeciesCount
      cattle - non-dairy beef15
      swine5
    • Forest/ woodlands
      • Tree plantation, afforestation: temperate continental forest plantation. Varieties: Mixed varieties
      Tree types (deciduous): n.a.
      Products and services: Fuelwood, Fruits and nuts, Grazing/ browsing, Nature conservation/ protection, Recreation/ tourism

    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
    • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
    • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bh: loss of habitats
    SLM group
    • agroforestry
    • windbreak/ shelterbelt
    • pastoralism and grazing land management
    SLM measures
    • vegetative measures - V1: Tree and shrub cover
    • management measures - M1: Change of land use type, M2: Change of management/ intensity level

    Technical drawing

    Technical specifications

    Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

    Calculation of inputs and costs
    • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 40 hectares; conversion factor to one hectare: 1 ha = 1 ha = 2.47 acres)
    • Currency used for cost calculation: £GBP
    • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.85 £GBP
    • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: £150
    Most important factors affecting the costs
    The cost of trees, establishment (i.e. planting & replacing trees) and fencing
    Establishment activities
    1. Ground preparation – marking out planting lines (Timing/ frequency: Winter)
    2. Planting trees (Timing/ frequency: Winter)
    3. Erecting electric fencing (Timing/ frequency: Winter)
    Total establishment costs (estimation)
    8000.0
    Maintenance activities
    1. Checking trees visually (Timing/ frequency: Ongoing - monthly)
    2. Vegetation maintaince via mowing (Timing/ frequency: Once a year in late summer)
    3. Management of rotational mob grazing (Timing/ frequency: Ongoing during grazing season - daily)
    4. Checking electric fences (Timing/ frequency: Ongoing - weekly)
    Maintenance inputs and costs (per 40 hectares)
    Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (£GBP) Total costs per input (£GBP) % of costs borne by land users
    Labour
    Checking trees & electric fences Hours 24.0 10.0 240.0 100.0
    Vegetation maintance Hours 30.0 10.0 300.0 100.0
    Management of rotational grazing pastures Hours 100.0 10.0 1000.0 100.0
    Equipment
    Flail mower attachment to tractor / strimmer unit 1.0 100.0
    Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 1'540.0
    Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 1'811.76

    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
    good
    education

    poor
    good
    technical assistance

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

    poor
    good
    markets

    poor
    good
    energy

    poor
    good
    roads and transport

    poor
    good
    drinking water and sanitation

    poor
    good
    financial services

    poor
    good

    Impacts

    Socio-economic impacts
    fodder production
    decreased
    increased


    Increased diversity with new tree forage available

    animal production
    decreased
    increased


    Improved welfare for cattle as trees provide shelter.

    forest/ woodland quality
    decreased
    increased


    Increased forest areas, diversity and connectivity

    product diversity
    decreased
    increased


    Trees provide wood fuel, fruit and nuts, alongside possible future option for recreation and tourism opportunities

    diversity of income sources
    decreased
    increased


    Trees provide wood fuel, fruit and nuts, alongside possible future option for recreation and tourism opportunities

    workload
    increased
    decreased


    Time for installation and management is higher than previous

    Socio-cultural impacts
    Aesthetic appeal of landscape - i.e. landscape looks better
    decreased
    increased


    More trees in the fields and flowering hedgerows etc

    Ecological impacts
    soil organic matter/ below ground C
    decreased
    increased


    Trees as stores of carbon and improved soil health

    biomass/ above ground C
    decreased
    increased


    Addition of above ground biomass in trees and hedgerows

    plant diversity
    decreased
    increased


    More diversity of productive and native trees and hedges

    habitat diversity
    decreased
    increased


    More space for biodiversity

    Off-site impacts

    Cost-benefit analysis

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

    Long-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

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

    Long-term returns
    very negative
    very positive

    Climate change

    Gradual climate change
    annual temperature increase

    not well at all
    very well

    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
    • Offers the opportunity to radically increase the biodiversity potential of the farm
    • Shelter belts improve animal welfare
    • Productivity increases with diversification of products and co-benefits.
    Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
    • A whole system approach promotes co-benefits of the farm improving animal welfare, biodiversity and diversification and thus resilience of the farm business.
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
    • High set up costs Careful choice of tree protection mechanism and seeking grant assistance
    Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
    • The system can be expensive to implement for little return in short-term Grant assistance
    • Approach takes time to implement (i.e. trees to grow) before full benefits are seen, and management during this time in particular is higher than traditional methods Long-term farm planning and seek guidance for the most effective implementation techniques to ensure best chance of success

    References

    Compiler
    • Alan Radbourne
    Editors
    Reviewer
    • William Critchley
    • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
    Date of documentation: July 14, 2022
    Last update: Aug. 5, 2022
    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