Technologies

Hedgerow establishment on an agro-pastoral farm for dairy cows [France]

Creation: 02/19/2020 11:36 a.m.
Update: 02/14/2021 1:49 p.m.
Compiler: Alan Radbourne
Editors: David Robinson, David Norris, Sabine Reinsch
Reviewer: Rima Mekdaschi Studer

Bocage

technologies_5681 - France

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 92%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

co-compiler:

Joubioux Christiane

Chambre Regionale D'Agriculture De Bretagne, Regional Chamber of Agriculture of Brittany

France

land user:

Danilo Noël

Danilo Noel

France

SLM specialist:

Senegas Isabelle

Chambre Regionale D'Agriculture De Bretagne, Regional Chamber of Agriculture of Brittany

France

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6195, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6195, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Association des Chambres d’agriculture de l’Arc Atlantique (AC3A) - France', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Low-maintenance hedgerows were established in 2003 at the ridges of an agro-pastoral farm common in Brittany to protect water quality, ensure animal well-being, maintain biodiversity, and for energy, timber and litter production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Brittany is an area in the north-west of France. Brittany’s agriculture includes well-known products such as: fish, beef, pork, poultry, vegetables and milk. The technology is applied at Danilo Noël farm, located in the commune of Mauron in Morbihan. The region has an average annual rainfall of 650-700 mm and annual temperature of around 11°C. The climate of Mauron is warm and temperate, with the farm located in the basin known as Ploërmel. ‘Bocages’ in France refer to small forests and decorative elements such as hedgerows or ornamental garden structures that border agricultural fields .

The fields of the Danilo Noël farm are grouped together in a rotational system of fodder crop and short-term pastoral leys, divided into fenced paddocks. They are located between two ‘talwegs’, with slopes of 5 or 6 %. An analysis carried out in 2000 by the water management organization ‘Grand Bassin de l'Oust’, shows that 85% of the plots are at high and medium risk of plant protection product runoff due to the slope and water run-off.

Following this evaluation of the farm, the ‘Bocage’ (small hedged pasturelands) was developed starting during the winter of 2003/2004, with the planting of 800 meters of woody features (hedges and trees) along the slopes of the talweg. Other slope plantings were carried out on the edge of the paddock in 2014/2015 (1500 meters) and 2018/2019 (1650 meters).

Earth bunds were established along the contour, either with a shovel (in 2003 and 2014) or with a forest plough (in November 2018), with hedge and tree whips (1-2 year old growth) planted 1 meter apart in single rows diectly into the shovel or plough furrow and a small amount of fertiliser and wire tree guards added. There was no irregation installed.

The technology was applied in three differnt phases combining to form one overall long-term plan. The tree species chosen for the hedgerow are local species (oak, beech, cherry, birch, myrobolan plum, chestnut, hazelnut, etc.). For the last two phases of the programs (2014 & 2018), emphasis was placed on the presence of melliferous species (for honey production) and the spread of flowering species (fruit trees, burdock, blood dogwood, medlar, etc.).

Buffering of fields with hedgerows aims to protect surface water quality and prevent land degradation by slowing surface water runoff and hence reducing soil erosion, nutrient and plant-protection product (pesticide) export and improving water infiltration into the soil and groundwater recharge. The reduction of soil erosion in turn improves productivity with a better surface cover and nutrient retention for improved plant establishment and growth. Additionally, maintenance and/or improvement of biodiverstiy can be attained as well as providing shelter for animals supports their well-being.

Major activities of the technology include: Tipping of trees (old and new) in spring/summer, soil preparation at the site of the future hedge in autumn and creation of the embankment (earth bund along the contour), tree planting over winter and laying of mulch and installation of game guards.

Benefits of the hedgerows/ shelter belts are reorganization and improvement of the field to reduce flooding, protect water quality , improve welfare of the livestock, Increase biodiversity of wildlife, including insects, birds and game. Additional honey bee forage supported the installation of an apiary (18 colonies) by a professional beekeeper in May 2019.

The only weakness of the technology in the eyes of the land owner was the extra cost/workload associated with the maintenance of the hedgerows.

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

France

Region/ State/ Province:

Brittany

Specify the spread of the Technology:

evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

0.1-1 km2

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2003

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

through land users' innovation
through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The farmer since 2000 has implemented various measures aimed at sustainable agriculture on the farm, and more recently (since 2018) the farm has become a 'pilot farm' in what is now the FABulous Farmers project aiming to improve biodiversity by enhancing the production system.

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

improve production
preserve/ improve biodiversity
adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

Agro-pastoralism (incl. integrated crop-livestock)

Cropland

Annual cropping

Hedge plantation

wheat, corn

Number of growing seasons per year:

Is intercropping practiced?

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Rotation of 1 year wheat, 1 year corn, 1 year fallow.

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:

Improved pastures

Animal type:

cattle - dairy

Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Manure intentionally used to improve crop production & crop residues are fed to animals.

Products and services:

milk

grassland, corn silage, wheat

Species:

cattle - dairy

Count:

Comments:

The hedges are planted on the periphery of the plot on embankments without interfering with the original land use.

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

No (Continue with question 3.4)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

agroforestry
windbreak/ shelterbelt
integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

vegetative measures

V1: Tree and shrub cover

structural measures

S2: Bunds, banks
S9: Shelters for plants and animals

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
Wo: offsite degradation effects

biological degradation

Bh: loss of habitats

water degradation

Hs: change in quantity of surface water
Hp: decline of surface water quality

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

prevent land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/f8/c/f8c37c7f-dbfe-47f8-8692-bec08e31c1a2.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/ff/0/ff01554a-6ac8-4538-80a2-eec63de8659f.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Creation of the embankment
- Use of the backhoe or excavator (2003/2004 and 2014/2015 developments)
- Earth removed from the field over a few metres wide - implementation by vertical compaction as the slope rises - shaping of the sides by slicing.
- Use of the forestry plough (2018/2019 development)
- 5 to 7 passes of the forestry plough to lift a 0.6 to 0.8 cm high ridge - bucket finishing for levelling .

Planting
- Choose deciduous species adapted to the environmental conditions (soil, climate) and combine several species in a hedge.
- For a honey hedge (source of pollen and nectar for bees), aim to spread out the flowering with species accessible to bees (hazelnut, burdock, black elder, blood dogwood, obier viorne, country maple, small-leaved linden, cherry, chestnut, black alder, willow...).
- Install biodegradable mulch at the foot of each plant and protection against wildlife (deer, hare, rabbit).

Author:

Isabelle Senegas

Date:

03/02/2020

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Example section of planting on embankment. Single line planting of tree saplings on top of embankment, mulch mat around foot of plant, tree guard installed.

Author:

Alan Radbourne

Date:

12/02/2021

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology unit

Specify unit:

meter

Specify dimensions of unit (if relevant):

1650

other/ national currency (specify):

€

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

0.9

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

€10.15 on 1 January 2020, i.e. €1,539.42 monthly on the basis of the legal working week of 35 hours.

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Tip saplings to form seedling transplants for new plants	spring-summer year 0
2.	Soil preparation at the site of the future hedge	September to October year 0
3.	Creation of the embankment using excavator or forestry plough to establish soil bunds. Vertical compaction of slopes and shaping.	September to October year 0
4.	Tree planting using several deciduous species adapted to the envionmental conditions.	December to March (year 0-1)
5.	Laying of biodegradable mulch at the foot of each plant to provide nutrients and moisture retention	December to March (year 0-1)
6.	Installation of game guards to protect againt wildlife (deer, hare, rabbit).	December to March (year 0-1)
7.	Creation of grass strips at the foot of the slope to stabilise embankment	December to March (year 0-1)

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input
Labour	Tip saplings	metre	1650.0	0.35	577.5
Labour	Soil preparation	metre	1650.0	0.8	1320.0
Labour	Creation of the embankment & grass strips	metre	1650.0	1.8	2970.0
Labour	Tree planting, mulching & protection	metre	1650.0	2.0	3300.0
Equipment	Excavator / Forest plough	metre	1650.0	0.5	825.0
Equipment	Biodegradable mulch	metre	1650.0	0.3	495.0
Equipment	Tree guards	metre	1650.0	0.7	1155.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					10642.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					11825.0

Comments:

The bocage development programme is carried out by the Great Oust basin with the following financial partners: Europe, the Loire-Brittany Water Agency, the Brittany Region, the Morbihan Department. The operator will have to pay €1 (excluding tax) per linear metre.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Hedge pruning and training	Winters for 10-15 years
2.	Lateral pruning of the flower part of the hedges	as required between two wood harvests (with a chainsaw)
3.	Slope maintenance (brush clearing and grazing)	once a year
4.	Wood harvest: re-growing of out-sticking branches (Coppice and shrubs)	15 years after planting, then every 10-15 years

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Hedge pruning and training	meter	1650.0	0.25	412.5	100.0
Equipment	Mechanical intervention: annual clearing	meter	1650.0	0.35	577.5	100.0
Construction material	Thermal brushcutter for landscaping and forestry work (investment to be amortized)	meter	1650.0	0.6	990.0	100.0
Other	Maintenance of the embankment	meter	1650.0	0.15	247.5	100.0
Other	od storage, chipping, transport of chips	meter	1650.0	0.25	412.5	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					2640.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					2933.33

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

- consistency of management
- hedge width
- Existence of outlets for wood (self-consumption, local industries, etc.)

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

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

Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

700.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

The farm is situated in the commune of Ploërmel in the Morbihan which lies in the early pedoclimatic zone.
The average annual rainfall is between 650-750 mm over the period 1971-2000.
The average annual temperature is around 11.5°C over the period 1971-2000.

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Ploermel

Agro-climatic zone

sub-humid

The Ploërmel basin is the most continental of the Morbihan with colder winters, warmer summers and rainfall between 650 and 750 mm/year.

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:

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

Altitudinal zone:

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.

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

The farm is located between two talwegs. Altitudes vary between 75 and 100 m. The steepest slopes (on the southern slope) are about 6%.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:

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):

medium (loamy, silty)

Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):

coarse/ light (sandy)

Topsoil organic matter:

low (<1%)

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

The farm is located in the commune of Ploërmel in Morbihan is in the geological zone of the Briovian Shale:
- Soil mapping unit (UCS (soil map units) n°4034): Brown soils gradually leached from the plains and plateaux from locally sandstone soft shale (including deep valley bottom soils, hydromorphic from the surface, with colluvio-alluvial or alluvial input).
- Soil mapping unit (UCS (soil map units) n°4040): Mainly well-drained and poorly leached soils of cultivated plateaus from soft shale.
Source Sols de Bretagne (http://www.sols-de-bretagne.fr/)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

good

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

Is flooding of the area occurring?

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

high

Habitat diversity:

medium

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Medium habitat diversity due to still young age of the hedges)

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:

Sedentary

Market orientation of production system:

commercial/ market

Off-farm income:

less than 10% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

average

Individuals or groups:

individual/ household

Level of mechanization:

mechanized/ motorized

Gender:

Age of land users:

middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

< 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

Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?

medium-scale

Comments:

The farm covers an area of 66 ha, 60 ha of which are accessible for grazing and some of which are wet.

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

individual, titled

Land use rights:

leased

Water use rights:

open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:

poor
moderate
good

education:

poor
moderate
good

technical assistance:

poor
moderate
good

employment (e.g. off-farm):

poor
moderate
good

markets:

poor
moderate
good

energy:

poor
moderate
good

roads and transport:

poor
moderate
good

drinking water and sanitation:

poor
moderate
good

financial services:

poor
moderate
good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Comments/ specify:

Increased labour but more sustainable water and land management

Increased workload with hedgerow management

Socio-cultural impacts

land use/ water rights

worsened

improved

recreational opportunities

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

quality of life

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced

improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quality

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Improved water quality in streams due to reduced surface run-off with hedgerow buffer strips

surface runoff

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

Decreased run-off with hedgerow buffering

excess water drainage

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

Rooting system reducing flooding

Soil

soil loss

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

Reduced soil erosion from buffered strips

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

Hedgerow inceasing below ground C

cultivation aids

buffer strips provide crop and animal shelter

Intake from hedges

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

	Season	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	well
annual rainfall		decrease	well

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	very well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
cold wave	moderately
drought	moderately

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well
landslide	moderately

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	not known
reduced growing period	not known
sea level rise	moderately

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

slightly positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

1-10%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

0-10%

Comments:

Several Breton regional programmes that aimed at improving water quality have made it possible to support bocage developments thanks to the involvement of financial partners from 2008 to 2020, as part of the wider "Breizh Bocage" programme. The remaining amount to be paid by the operator is 1€ per linear meter in the current programme.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

economic concern of operating system

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Due to a concern the maintenence costs would outweigh the benefit return the parcels of land have been rearranged to suit a more efficient system.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Improvement and reorganisation of the plot with a reduction of wetlands.
Protection of the animals against bad weather and welfare of the herd.
Protection of water quality.
Increase in wildlife: insects, birds, game, etc.
Additional benefits of the hedges are the possibility of installing apiary (18 colonies) by a professional beekeeper in May 2019.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Hydraulic and water chemical control with combination of hedge and embankment.
Improvement of the landscape and the living environment favourable to the preservation of heritage and the development of tourism: hiking circuits.
Ecological functions with the preservation of biological diversity: "ecological corridors".
Economic functions with multiple outputs, such as firewood, timber, hederow crop (i.e. berries) and increased pollen source for bees

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Hedge maintenance: extra cost and workload	Delegation to a specialised company.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Time intensive upkeep (i.e. training of saplings) that maybe overlooked and thus not produce highest quality output	Outsource labour work (yet additional expense)
Lack of outlets for wood from hedgerows	- self-consumption of wood: installation of plate boilers on farms, or heating networks, use of wood for animal bedding - developing territorial channels for the valorisation of wood from hedgerows
Need for training and support for operators	Sustainable management plan for hedges and trees on the farm, and monitoring.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

field visits, field surveys

At the farm Noël Danilo

interviews with land users

At the farm Noël Danilo

compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Breih Bocage Programme (2015-2020): diagnosis actions