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

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

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers

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?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

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.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

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.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

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

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2017

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through land users' innovation

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

• improve animal welfare

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):

• Silvo-pastoralism

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

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

• Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

Trees not irrigated. Cattle mainly by water troughs.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• agroforestry
• integrated crop-livestock management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

British pound

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

0.73

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Trench dug with tillage machinery to plant each row of trees	Autumn
2.	Tree standards (bought from tree nursery) planted by hand in trench spaces 2m apart	Winter
3.	Fencing installed by hand as single strand electric along either side of each row of trees	Spring
4.	Mulch added to base of trees using tractor to surpress weeds, provide fertiliser and keep moisture in soil	Spring

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

14500.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mulching each year at base of trees	Yearly (first 3 years)
2.	Strimming grass and weeds between trees where livestock are exluded from area by fencing	Yearly (first 5 years)
3.	Light pruning or training by hand where required	Yearly (first 5 years)

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

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

1500.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Type of tree, type of fencing and weather related impacts.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

Surface water flooding due to poor drainage, one aim of intervention is to help improve this.

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased

Water use rights:

• leased

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

550 hectares rented, 80 hectares owned by the farmer

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

N/A

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

Gradual climate change

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

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

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

Comments:

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• single cases/ experimental

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

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

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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.

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?
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 in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Overall costs against short-term return	Secure funding to enable longer-term return.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information