Abstract
The choice of tree arrangement can determine the success or failure of a silvopastoral system. We explored the knowledge and attitudes of livestock advisors regarding different tree arrangements and their perception of the benefits of the system to the pasture and the animals. Advisors from southern Brazil (n = 228) participated in an online survey. A short definition of silvopastoral systems and a schematic representation of five tree arrangements (single-row, tree-row on the border fence, multiples-rows, woodland and scattered trees) were presented, followed by open-ended, multiple-choice, and 5-point Likert scale questions. Participants were more likely to be male (84%), agronomists (47%), and 40% were older than 51 years old. Only 29% of participants stated to be acquainted with all the tree arrangements. Participants had more positive attitude toward single-row than the other tree arrangements and recognize the single-row as the most suitable from an ecological, economical and animal welfare point of view. Woodland and scattered trees arrangements were perceived as less economically viable than the others. Participants perceived the silvopastoral system beneficial to the welfare of the animals (99%), and to the pasture (62%). The main benefit mentioned for the animals and the pasture was the improvement of the microclimate, given the protection of animals from heat and the pasture from frost. In conclusion, the participants had positive attitudes towards the silvopastoral systems and their potential benefits to pasture and to animals. Also, they had more positive attitude to the tree arrangements with which they were most familiar, i.e., single-row, border fence, and multiple-row.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alves FV, Laura VA, Almeida RG (2015) Sistemas agroflorestais: a agropecuária sustentável, 1st ed. Embrapa Gado de Corte, Livro técnico (INFOTECA-E)
Angrecka S, Herbut P (2015) Conditions for old stress development in dairy cattle kept in free stall barn during severe frosts. Czech J Anim Sci 60:81–87. https://doi.org/10.17221/7978-CJAS
Arias PA, Bellouin N, Coppola E et al (2021) Technical summary. In: Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Aryal DR, Gómez-González RR, Hernández-Nuriasmú R, Morales-Ruiz DE (2019) Carbon stocks and tree diversity in scattered tree silvopastoral systems in Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst 93:213–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0310-y
Balcão LF, Longo C, Costa JHC, Uller-Gómez C, Machado Filho LCP, Hötzel MJ (2016) Characterisation of smallholding dairy farms in southern Brazil. Anim Prod Sci 57:735–745. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15133
Battisti LFZ, Filho ALS, Loss A, de Almeida Sinisgalli PA (2018) Soil chemical attributes in a high biodiversity silvopastoral system. Acta Agron 67:486–493. https://doi.org/10.15446/acag.v67n4.70180
Bento GP, Filho ALS, Faita MR (2020) Sistemas silvipastoris no Brasil: uma revisão sistemática. Res Soc Dev 9:1–25. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v9i10.9016
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G (2019) Thematic analysis. Springer, Singapore
Broom DM (1988) Needs, freedoms and the assessment of welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 19:384–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(88)90023-8
Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ et al (2018) Hot and bothered: public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS ONE 13:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205352
Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, Machado Filho LCP, Hötzel MJ (2021) Dairy Heifer motivation for access to a shaded area. Animals 11:2507. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092507
Cook BR, Satizábal P, Curnow J (2021) Humanising agricultural extension: a review. World Dev 140:105337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105337
Cornish A, Raubenheimer D, McGreevy P (2016) What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 6:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6110074
Cubbage F, Balmelli G, Bussoni A et al (2012) Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst 86:303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9482-z
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Deniz M, Schmitt Filho AL, Hötzel MJ et al (2020) Microclimate and pasture area preferences by dairy cows under high biodiversity silvopastoral system in Southern Brazil. Int J Biometeorol 64:1877–1887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-020-01975-0
Deniz M, De-Sousa KT, Moro MF et al (2021) Social hierarchy influences dairy cows’ use of shade in a silvopastoral system under intensive rotational grazing. Appl Anim Behav Sci 244:105467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105467
De-Sousa KT, Deniz M, do Vale MM, et al (2021) Influence of microclimate on dairy cows’ behavior in three pasture systems during the winter in south Brazil. J Therm Biol 97:102873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2021.102873
Eastham J, Rose CW (1988) Pasture evapotranspiration under varying tree planting density in an agroforestry experiment. Agric Water Manag 15:87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3774(88)90145-X
Figueiredo EB, Jayasundara S, de Oliveira BR et al (2017) Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of beef cattle in three contrasting pasture-management systems in Brazil. J Clean Prod 142:420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.132
Fleming A, O’Grady AP, Mendham D et al (2019) Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to increase adoption of agroforestry in Australia. Agron Sustain Dev 39:9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0555-5
Goodman LA (1961) Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 32:148–170. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE (2012) Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks
Hendricks J, Mills KE, Sirovica LV et al (2022) Public perceptions of potential adaptations for mitigating heat stress on Australian dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 105:5893–5908. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2022-21813
Hernández-Morcillo M, Burgess P, Mirck J et al (2018) Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 80:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.013
Hötzel MJ, Vandresen B (2022) Brazilians’ attitudes to meat consumption and production: present and future challenges to the sustainability of the meat industry. Meat Sci 192:108893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108893
Hughes BO, Duncan IJH (1988) The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Anim Behav 36:1696–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(88)80110-6
IBGE (2021) Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística—Produção da Extração Vegetal e da Silvicultura. Rio de Janeiro, ISSN: 0103-8435, 36:1–8
INMET (2009) INMET—Normais Climatológicas do Brasil. Brasilia
Jose S, Walter D, Mohan Kumar B (2019) Ecological considerations in sustainable silvopasture design and management. Agrofor Syst 93:317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0065-2
Landini F, Brites W, Mathot y Rebolé MI (2017) Towards a new paradigm for rural extensionists’ in-service training. J Rural Stud 51:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.010
Mann C, Sherren K (2018) Holistic Management and adaptive grazing: a trainers’ view. Sustain 10:1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061848
McConnachie E, Thompson AJ, Smid AMC et al (2018) Cows are highly motivated to access a grooming substrate. Biol Lett 14:20180303. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0303
Munsell JF, Addlestone BJ, Bukowski CJ et al (2018) Relationships between agroforestry and community development according to practitioners. Agrofor Syst 92:1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0084-7
Paciullo DSC, Fernandes PB, Carvalho CAB et al (2021) Pasture and animal production in silvopastoral and open pasture systems managed with crossbred dairy heifers. Livest Sci 245:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104426
Paula RR, Reis GG, Reis MGF et al (2013) Eucalypt growth in monoculture and silvopastoral systems with varied tree initial densities and spatial arrangements. Agrofor Syst 87:1295–1307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9638-5
Pezzopane JRM, Bernardi ACC, Azenha MV et al (2020) Production and nutritive value of pastures in integrated livestock production systems: Shading and management effects. Sci Agric 77:2. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2018-0150
R Core Team (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Ritter C, Hötzel MJ, von Keyserlingk MAG (2022) Public attitudes toward different management scenarios for “surplus” dairy calves. J Dairy Sci 105:5909–5925. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21425
Robson C, McCartan K (2016) Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, 4th ed. Printer Trento
Sales-Baptista E, Ferraz-de-Oliveira MI (2021) Grazing in silvopastoral systems: multiple solutions for diversified benefits. Agrofor Syst 95:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00581-8
Schmitt Filho AL, Farley J (2020) Transdisciplinary case study approaches to the ecological restoration of rainforest ecosystems. In: Ecological economic and socio ecological strategies for forest conservation, pp 185–212
Schmitt Filho AL, Fantini AC, Farley J (2017) Nucleation theory inspiring the design of high biodiversity silvopastoral system in the Atlantic Forest biome: ecological restoration, family farm livelihood and agroecology. In: VII world conference on ecological restorarion—SER. Foz do Iguaçu
Schreiner HG (1983) Área experimental silvipastoril no sul do Paraná. EMBRAPA-URPFCS
Simioni GF, Schmitt Filho AL, Joner F et al (2022) Response of birds to high biodiversity silvopastoral systems: Integrating food production and biodiversity conservation through applied nucleation in southern Brazil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 324:107709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107709
Smith MM, Bentrup G, Kellerman T et al (2021) Windbreaks in the United States: a systematic review of producer-reported benefits, challenges, management activities and drivers of adoption. Agric Syst 187:103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103032
Smith LG, Westaway S, Mullender S et al (2022) Assessing the multidimensional elements of sustainability in European agroforestry systems. Agric Syst 197:103357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103357
Stutzman E, Barlow RJ, Morse W et al (2019) Targeting educational needs based on natural resource professionals’ familiarity, learning, and perceptions of silvopasture in the southeastern U.S. Agrofor Syst 93:345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0260-4
Thornton P, Nelson G, Mayberry D, Herrero M (2022) Impacts of heat stress on global cattle production during the 21st century: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Heal 6:e192–e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00002-X
Tucker CB, Rogers AR, Verkerk GA et al (2007) Effects of shelter and body condition on the behaviour and physiology of dairy cattle in winter. Appl Anim Behav Sci 105:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.06.009
Varella AC, Barro RS, Silva JLS, Silva VP, Saibro JC (2016) Silvopastoral systems in Southern South. America 11:270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24109-8
Vieira FMC, Militão ÉR, Júnior AW et al (2021) Impact of shading of a silvopastoral system on microclimate and botanical composition of polyphytic pasture: a preliminary study in the subtropics. J Ecol Eng J 22:215–224. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/142206
Vieira Junior NA, Evers J, Vianna MS et al (2022) Understanding the arrangement of Eucalyptus-Marandu palisade grass silvopastoral systems in Brazil. Agric Syst 196:103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103316
Wilkens P, Munsell JF, Fike JH et al (2021) Is livestock producers’ interest in silvopasture related to their operational perspectives or characteristics? Agrofor Syst 96:541–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00664-0
Acknowledgements
KTS and MD acknowledge the scholarship from CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of High Education Personnel, Brazil). We acknowledge the “Instituto de Desenvolvimento Rural do Paraná” for the help during the planning and divulgation the questionnaire. MJH acknowledge support from CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brazil).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Research with Humans of the Federal University of Paraná, protocol number 4.219.938/2020.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
De-Sousa, K.T., Deniz, M., Hill, J.A.G. et al. Tree arrangements for silvopastoral system: livestock advisors’ knowledge and attitudes. Agroforest Syst 97, 1143–1156 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00853-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00853-z