Trees:Improving the lives of livestock

Chair: Liz Bowles, Head of Farming, the Soil Association

David Brass

www.lakesfreerange.co.uk

David Brass

C.E.O

Trees on Farm Development and History

1997 Noticed hens like to be under trees, started planting

2001 BFREPA Conference

2004 Sainsbury Woodland

2007 McDonald’s , science

2010 First paper published , Journal of Animal Welfare

2012 Second paper published, Vet Record, commercials of trees

2014 RSPCA Assured change standards

2017 21 million F/R birds benefit, under 2 million trees.

What did Science show

➢Mortality

➢Feather Pecking

➢Disease

➢Production

➢Egg Quality

Benefits of Trees

Why Trees

➢Better Welfare

➢Make more money

➢Better Range Quality

➢Better Drainage

➢Shelters Building

➢ Improves soil structure

➢Reduces runoff, flood reduction

➢Ammonia reduction

➢Environmental indicators - Tree Species

- Early Pollen

- Bats, Barn Owls , Squirrels etc

Enhanced Audits

➢Range with no trees 2/3

➢Range with 2 to 3 yr old whips 6/8

➢10 yr almost full canopy 20/ 30

This includes a significant number of red list species plus Bats, Moths,

Barn owls, Red Squirrels etc.

If it looks right and it feels right then it is right

Ted Green

Forgotten food—Tree Fodder.

Who said cows and horses ate grass?Real Hay not grass hay

A scene of 14,000 years ago … or 14 hours ?

Domestication of animals developed into pastoralism –harmony between nature, people and animals

Andy Smith

The electric sheep -what we can learn about the impact of trees for livestock welfare

Pippa Jones, Yufeng He, Clive Budden, Mark Rayment, Andy SmithSchool of Environment, Natural Resources and GeographyBangor University

Uplands are a challenging environment to farm livestock!

• Extreme temperatures (hot or cold)

• Hypothermia, starvation, disease, exposure, ewe stress

• Late snow fall in March 2013: 150,000 deaths

• Livestock productivity is all about…energy balance and welfare!

• Strategic placement of green infrastructure (shelter) such as trees and hedgerows could improve the productivity of pasture-based livestock systems

Research questions

How does tree-shelter altermicroclimatic conditions?

How is sheep thermal energy balance influenced by micro-climate?

How is the growth of pasture plant species influenced by micro-climate, and how are these factors affected by the presence of tree-shelter?

How does the availability of tree-shelter affect sheep behaviour?

e.g. lambing, extreme weather

WIND

How does the influence of tree-shelter onmicroclimate affect the energy balance of sheltering sheep?

Sheep : Microclimate : Trees (+) : Pasture

Productivity and the energy balance of sheep?

food

faecesurine

N gas

WIND

metabolism

lactation

bodily processes

movement

radiation

thermo-regulation

+ 𝑅𝑛 = 𝑬𝒑−((𝐸𝑎 + 𝐸𝑑 + 𝐸𝑙 + ∆𝐻𝑠 )− (𝐸𝑓 + (𝐸𝑢 + 𝐸𝑔 ))− 𝑀𝑏𝐸𝑖 − (𝐻𝑐𝑣(𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎) + 𝐻𝑐𝑑(𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎) + 𝐻𝑎𝑑(𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑠𝑢𝑟) + 𝜆𝐸𝑠 + 𝜆𝐸𝑟 ))

radiation

convectionevaporation

conduction

Development of the e-sheep

How much extra energy does a cold sheep need to stay warm?

Ambient temp 6°C 25°C

Energy 233 kJ/Day 99 kJ/Day

Grass 21g DM/Day → 0.14m2

9g DM/Day → 0.06m2

Silage 21 g/Day 9 g/Day

Compound feed 19 g/Day 8 g/Day

Operative environmental temperature

• Microclimate – and its heating + cooling effects as experienced by a sheep

Body core temperature simulation

• Power needed → energy needed to keep warm = thermoregulatory index

57

Modelling of windbreak effects

Tree-shelter, sheep energy balance + microclimate

• Sheep biophysical model: effect of tree-shelter on thermal balance of a model sheep

• Model sheep energy maintenance

• Micrometeorology: wind speed, wind direction, radiation (light), temperature, humidity, precipitation

• Configuration of tree-shelter systems:, species composition, porosity, etc.

tree-shelter, sheep behaviour + microclimate

• Sheep behaviour:

• Sheep location + time

• GPS tracking

• Detailed movements?

• Position of tree-shelter systems:

• Different orientations/ configurations/porosities (species)

• Microclimate:

• Exposed, sheltered positions

• Key seasons + events:

• Adverse microclimate• Farming year - lambing

Landscape optimisation tools for livestock farming

Empirical measurements

ModellingWeb-based tool

Smart phone visualisation

61

AnnualAverage Temp Range: [-5.28, 1.32]

SummerAverage Temp Range: [-2.02, 3.67]

WinterAverage Temp Range: [-10.31, -3.20]

• Pasture/plant growth characteristics

• Growth rate (seasons)

• Optimal species

• Loss of pasture to trees?

• Changes in pasture quality/productivity?

wind

GROWTH RATE

Future work

Summary• Strategic placement + availability of shelter (trees, shrubs) in the farmland

landscape can enhance animal productivity + welfare

• Tree-shelter will positively impact animal energy balance by reducing energy lost due to microclimatic conditions.

• The configuration of tree-shelter features in the landscape will impact the extent of effect on sheep energy balance.

• Animals preferentially utilise tree-shelter associated pasture in times of climatic extreme.

• What preferences do animals have for configurations of tree-shelter in the landscape?

• Sunlight and pasture growth – the next pieces of the puzzle…

Thank ewe!

Paul Burgess

European Union’s Seventh Framework Program for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 613520

Agroforestry for livestock farmers –lessons from the AGFORWARD project

Paul Burgess1, John E. Hermansen2, Jo Smith3, Monique Bestman4, Boki Luske4, Sandra Novak5, Anne Grete Kongsted2, Rosa Mosquera Losada6, Valerio Bondesan7, Jim McAdam8

Presentation at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, Oxford,Thursday 4 January 2018

1 Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK2Aarhus University, Denmark3Organic Research centre, Berkshire, UK4Louis Bolk Institute, Netherlands.5INRA, Lusignan, France6Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain7Veneto Agricoltura, Legnaro, Padova, Italy8Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Belfast, UK

Copyright © 2017 AGFORWARD

Content

1. To provide an overview of agroforestry

with livestock across Europe

2. Review some innovation of trees with

livestock

3. Review perceptions of agroforestry

across Europe

Silvopastoral systems

Silvopastoral

Combining trees and shrubs with forage and animal production

Silvoarable

Widely spaced trees and shrubs inter-cropped with annual or perennial crops

Hedgerows, windbreaks and riparian buffer strips

Lines of trees/shrubs bordering farmland to protect livestock, crops, and/or soil and water quality

Forest farming

Forested areas used for harvest of speciality crops

Home-gardens

Trees/shrubs with vegetables in urban areas

Silvopastoral systems are importantcovering 3.6% of Europe

Area of agroforestry: Using LUCAS data:15.4 Mha (3.6% of total area and 8.8%

of agricultural area) (den Herder et al. 2017) (excludes 1.8 Mha of homegardens).

0 2000 4000 6000

Spain

Greece

France

Italy

Portugal

Romania

Bulgaria

UK

Sweden

Germany

Other

Area (thousand ha)

Silvopastoral

Silvoarable

www.agforward.eu

46 Innovation leaflets

Improved seasonality of grass production

Longer grazing season under the tree canopies in Spain and Portugal

Improved seasonality of grass production

In Northern Ireland, trees allow earlier access to grass in Spring and extended grazing in autumn

Conservation value of livestock grazing

Red Poll cattle in Epping Forest wearing collars for a virtual fencing scheme to allow unconstrained public access

Reduced mowing costs Opportunities for improved off-site grass use

Grazing of high-stem cider orchards

Hens in organic apple orchards

Woodland eggs• Hens use more of their range • Less feather pecking damage • Fewer wild fowl visits

• Commercial standard sward mixture established as well as customised seed mix

• Rotation of access to manage pressure across the range

Sward establishment under trees

• Reduced heat stress• Trees need to be established

for 2-4 years before access• Metal cage tree protection

was most effective

Pigs and trees

Tree fodder database: leaves of black locust, chestnut, white mulberry and ash have crude protein levels of 22%

Tree fodder

On-line fodder tree database

0.01.0

0.0 1.0

Animal health and welfare

Diversity of products

Crop and pasture production

Animal production

Production of tree products

Quality of tree products

Crop and pasture quality

Disease and weed control

Predation loss to wild animals

Negative attributes

Positive attributes

Positive

Negative

Agroforestry can create production benefits

Analysis of 30 stakeholder groups and 344 stakeholders (Garcia de Jalon et al. 2017)

0.01.0

0.0 1.0

Biodiversity

Landscape aesthetics

Soil conservation

Carbon sequestration

Climate moderation

Water quality

Runoff and flood control

Change in fire risk

Control of noise and odour

Reduced groundwater…

Negative attributes

Positive attributes

Positive

Negative

Agroforestry provides environmental benefits

Analysis of 30 stakeholder groups and 344 stakeholders (Garcia de Jalon et al. 2017)

Modelling ecosystem services for

landscapes with and without agroforestry

Kay et al. (2017) Agroforestry Systems

Ecosystem services modelled:• Crop biomass yield• Groundwater recharge rate• Nutrient retention• Soil conservation• Carbon sequestration• Biodiversity

• Functional biodiversity (Pollination)

• Habitat diversity

Nutr

ient

losses

Soil

losses

Carb

on

sequestr

ation

Sem

i-natu

ral

habitats

Habitat

div

ers

ity

SID

I

Polli

nation

serv

ices

Agroforestry dominated landscape test sites

Agricultural dominated landscape test sites

Comparison of agroforestry and

agricultural landscapes across 12 sites

Agroforestry landscapes

Higher:• Nutrient retention• C sequestration• Soil conservation• Pollination services • Proportions of semi-

natural habitatsLower:• Groundwater

recharge

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

recharg

e r

ate

Biodiversity

Kay et al. (2017) Agroforestry Systems

Be

ne

fits

Lo

sse

s

0.01.0

0.0 1.0

Originality and interest

Project feasibility

Inspection of animals

Regulation

Mechanisation

Management costs

Complexity of work

Administrative burden

Labour

Negative attributes

Positive attributes

Positive

Negative

Farmers indicate that agroforestry has labour and administrative costs

Analysis of 30 stakeholder groups and 344 stakeholders (Garcia de Jalon et al. 2017)

Agroforestry for livestock farmers

1. Is an important land use

2. Established animal welfare and

seasonal grass production benefits

3. Interest in trees as fodder

4. Wider environmental benefits for society

5. Importance of manager’s mind set: do you

focus on the positive innovations or the costs?

6. Visit: www.agforward.eu

References

AGFORWARD (2018). AGFORWARD website. www.agforward.euden Herder M, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada RM, Palma JHN, Sidiropoulou A, Santiago Freijanes JJ, Crous-Duran J, Paulo JA, Tomé

M, Pantera A, Papanastasis VP, Mantzanas K, Pachana P, Papadopoulos A, Plieninger T, Burgess PJ (2017) . Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 241: 121–132.

Emile JC, Delagarde R, Barre P, Niderkorn V, Novak S (2017). Evaluation of the feeding value of leaves of woody plants for feeding ruminants in summer. 19th EGF Symposium on "Grassland resources for extensive farming systems in marginal regions: major drivers and future scenarios", Alghero, Sardinia (Italy) Grassland Science in Europe, vol 22, 548-550.

García de Jalón S, Burgess PJ, Graves A, Moreno G, McAdam J, Pottier E, Novak S, Bondesan V, Mosquera-Losada MR, Crous-Durán J, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Oliveira TS, Cirou E, Hannachi Y, Pantera A, Wartelle R, Kay S, Malignier N, Van Lerberghe P, Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Rois M, Kongsted AG, Thenail C, Luske B, Berg S, Gosme M, Vityi A (2017). How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects among stakeholders. Agroforestry Systems. DOI 10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3

Kay S, Crous-Duran J, Garcia de Jalon S, Graves A, Palma JHN, Roces-Diaz JV, Szerencsits E, Weibel R, Herzog F (2017). Landscape-Scale Modelling of Agroforestry Ecosystems Services: A Methodological Approach. Submitted.

Kay S, Crous-Duran J, García de Jalón S, Graves A, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada MR et al. (2017). “Spatial Similarities between European Agroforestry Systems and Ecosystem Services at the Landscape Scale.” Agroforestry Systems. doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0132-3.

Luske B, Meir I. van, Altinalmazis Kondylis A, Roelen S, Eekeren N van (2017). Online fodder tree database for Europe. Louis Bolk Institute and Stichting Duinboeren, the Netherlands. 24 November 2017. www.voederbomen.nl/nutritionalvalues/

Palma JHN, Graves AR, Bunce RGH, Burgess PJ, de Filippi R, Keesman KJ, van Keulen H, Liagre F, Mayus M, Moreno G, Reisner Y, Herzog F (2007). Modelling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119, 320 – 334.

Questions?