Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 313–322 | Cite as

A financial analysis of a silvopasture system in southern Mississippi

  • S. C. GradoEmail author
  • C. H. Hovermale
  • D. G. st. Louis
Article

Abstract

Silvopasture is reemerging as a land use in the southern US. Alternate land use treatments based on field trials for timber and pasture for beef cattle production were financially evaluated. Multiple-use management aspects of these systems were further illustrated by the addition of fee hunting. Land Expectation Values (LEVs) were lower when silvopasture treatments were compared to steer grazing only. However, silvopasture treatments compared favorably to some grazing treatments. LEVs were higher when silvopasture treatments were compared to commercial forest plantation applications on similar sites. Silvopasture systems promote multiple-use management of the land under an environmentally friendly cropping system whereby certain types of wildlife can thrive. This is particularly relevant in light of recent increases in fee hunting in the South. LEVs were reduced by $289, $200, and $151 ha−1 at discount rates of 5%, 7%, and 9% respectively, when fee hunting was excluded in the recommended silvopasture treatment. The monetary value of a wildlife component in this system can be interpreted as the expected value gained per hectare per rotation in perpetuity when fee hunting is part of the management plan. On average, it represented an 8.6% gain in LEVs for this treatment. Results from this study support the potential for silvopasture applications in the South for private landowners. Cattle grazing of improved forage in commercially productive loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands can relieve annual cash flow problems inherent in tree production.

beef cattle fee hunting land expectation values Mississippi silvopasture systems southern pine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birch TW (1997) Private Forest-land Owners of the Southern United States, 1994. Resour Bull NE-138. Radnor, PA: US Dept of Agric, For Serv Northeast For Exp Stat, 195 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Buck LE (1995) Agroforestry policy issues and research directions in the US and less developed countries: insights and challenges from recent experience. Agrofor Syst 30: 57-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullard SH and Straka TJ (1998) Basic Concepts in Forest Valuation and Investment Analysis. 2nd ed. Copyright Bullard-Straka, Preceda Education and Training, Auburn, AL, 270 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Buskirk DD, Lemenager RP and Horstman LA (1992) Estimation of net energy requirements (Nem and NED) of lactating cows. J Animal Sci 70: 3867-3876Google Scholar
  5. Byrd NA and Lewis CE (1983) Managing Pine Trees and Bahiagrass for Timber and Cattle Production. USDA, For Serv South Reg Gen Rep R8-GR 2, 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Clason TR (1995) Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine plantations. Agrofor Syst 29: 227-238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clason TR (1996) Timber-pasture management enhances productivity of loblolly pine plantations. Louisiana Agriculture 39(2): 14-16Google Scholar
  8. Daniels R (1999) Mississippi Timber Price Report. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, Extension Service Drover's (1997) Stocker/Feeder Prices for September, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Vanec Pub Corp, Lenexa, KS Dubois MR, McNabb K and Straka TJ (1997) Costs and costs trends for forestry practices in the South. For Farmer 31: 7-13Google Scholar
  10. Gardner W (1990) Intermediate stand management. In: Landowner's Handbook for Managing Southern Pines (pp 31-36). Cooperative Extension Service and USDA Forest Service, Southern RegionGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartsell AJ and London JD (1995) Forest Statistics for Mississippi Counties-1994. US Dept Agric, For Serv, South For Exp Sta, Resour Bull SO-190, New Orleans, LA, 89 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazel RB (1990) Timber and Wildlife. In: Landowner's Handbook for Managing Southern Pines (pp 43-45). Cooperative Extension Service and USDA, Forest Service Southern RegionGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones WD, Munn IA, Jones JC and Grado SC (1998) A survey to determine fee hunting and wildlife management activities by private nonindustrial landowners in Mississippi. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish and Wildl Agencies 52: 421-429Google Scholar
  14. Matney T (1996) Cutover Loblolly Pine Plantation Model (Computer Software). Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MSGoogle Scholar
  15. Munn IA (1998) Forestry in Mississippi, The Impact of the Forest Products Industry on the Mississippi Economy: An Input-Output Analysis. FWRC Res Bull FO087. Forest and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, MSGoogle Scholar
  16. National Provisioner (1991) Seven year seasonal trend for boning utility and canner and cutter cows. National Provisioner, Inc, Chicago, IL 204: 34-37Google Scholar
  17. Pearson HA (1991) Silvopasture: forest grazing and agroforestry in the southern coastal plain. In: Henderson DR (ed) Proceedings: Mid-South conference on Agroforestry Practices and Policies (pp 25-42). West Memphis, AR 28-29 November 1990. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearson HA, Baldwin VC and Barnett JP (1990) Cattle grazing and pine survival and growth in subterranean clover pasture. Agrofor Syst 10: 161-168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ and Ashton PMS (1997) The Practice of Silviculture. 9th ed John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY, 537 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. USDA (2000) Agricultural Statistics. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Division. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. USDA (1998) Farm Production Expenditures. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Division. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Valenti MA (1986) A comparison of the effects of one-step and two-step pruning on loblolly pine stem form. South J Appl For 10: 251-253Google Scholar
  23. Williams, PA, Gordon, AM, Garrett and Buck L (1997) Agroforestry in North America and its role in farming systems. In: Gordon AM and Newman SM (eds) Temperate Agroforestry Systems (pp 9-84). CAB INTERNAIONAL, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Zinkhan FC and Mercer DE (1997) An assessment of agroforestry systems in the southern USA. Agrofor Syst 35: 303-321CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. C. Grado
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. H. Hovermale
    • 2
  • D. G. st. Louis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ForestryMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA
  2. 2.South Mississippi Branch Experiment StationMississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment StationPoplarvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations