Abstract
Silvopasture is the intentional integration of trees, forages, and livestock. Benefits of this agroforestry practice include shade for livestock, nutritious forage, and reduced wind speed in pastures, as well as ecosystem services and tree products. The literature indicate that some livestock producers are interested in silvopasture, but little is known about their establishment preferences and if they vary by demographics or operation type. This study hypothesized that producers are equally interested in planting trees in pastures (planting) and reducing forest canopy and planting forages (thinning) to establish silvopasture, and that the effects of the potential benefits of silvopasture on their preferences are similar. To test these hypotheses, 307 livestock producers in Virginia, United States of America were surveyed about whether they prefer planting or thinning. Producers also were asked about the extent to which potential benefits of silvopasture affect their preferences. Nearly 25% of the 139 respondents (response rate = 45%) were ‘very interested’ in thinning, compared to 8% for planting. Animal performance and welfare was their primary goal, but forest management and whole-farm productivity also were important. Guidelines are needed for maintaining stand health and productivity when thinning and for improving tree protection and growth in pastures when planting to establish silvopasture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armstrong A, Stedman RC (2012) Landowner willingness to implement riparian buffers in transitioning watersheds. Landsc Urb Plan 105(3):211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.011
Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010) Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry diffusion. Agrofor Syst 79(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9269-z
Borremans L, Reubens B, Van Gils B, Baeyens D, Vandevelde C, Wauters E (2016) A sociopsychological analysis of agroforestry adoption in Flanders: understanding the discrepancy between conceptual opportunities and actual implementation. Agroeco Sustain Food Syst 40(9):1008–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1204643
Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CR, McKenna JA, Teutsch CD (2005) Botanical composition and forage production in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J 97(4):1141–1147. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0308
Buergler AL, Fike JH, Burger JA, Feldhake CM, McKenna JR, Teutsch CD (2006) Forage nutritive value in an emulated silvopasture. Agron J 98(5):1265–1273. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0199
Commender KE, Munsell JF, Ares A, Sullivan BJ, Chamberlain JL (2020) The effects of cost-share participant experience on forest buffer retention. Small-Scale for 2020:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09435-8
Cooper ER, Jacobson MG (2009) Establishing conservation easements on forested riparian buffers: opportunities for long-term streamside protection. Small-Scale for 8(3):263–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-009-9082-6
Current D, Lutz E, Scherr SJ (1995) The costs and benefits of agroforestry to farmers. The World Bank Res Obs 10(2):151–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.151
Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Internet, mail and mixed-model surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York
Featherstone AM, Goodwin BK (1993) Factors influencing a farmer’s decision to invest in long term conservation improvements. Land Econ 69(1):67–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146279
Fike JH, Buergler AL, Burger JA, Kallenbach RL (2004) Considerations for establishing and managing silvopastures. Graz Land for. https://doi.org/10.1094/FG-2004-1209-01-RV
Fike JH, Downing AK, Munsell JF, Daniel JB, Teustch C, Mercier K, Pent G (2017) Creating silvopastures: some considerations when thinning existing timber stands. VCE-CSES-155P
Filion FL (1976) Exploring and correcting for nonresponse bias using follow-ups of non respondents. Pac Soc Rev 19(3):401–408
Frey GE, Fike JH (2018) Silvopasture Case studies in North Carolina and Virginia. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-236. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRSGTR-236
Frey GE, Mercer DE, Cubbage FW, Abt RC (2013) A real options model to assess the role of flexibility in forestry and agroforestry adoption and disadoption in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Agric Econ 44(1):73–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00633.x
Frey GE, Fike JH, Downing AK, Comer MM, Mize TA, Teutsch CD (2017) Trees and livestock together: silvopasture research and application for Virginia farms. In: Proceedings of the seventh national small farm conference. September 20–22, 2016, Virginia Beach
Garrett HE, Kerley MS, Ladyman KP, Walter WD, Godsey LD, Van Sambeek JW, Brauer DK (2004) Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. New vistas in agroforestry. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_2
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Routledge, New York
Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (2001) Survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York
Hagan PT (1996) Evaluating determinants of participation in voluntary riparian buffer programs: a case study of Maryland’s buffer incentive program. M.S. thesis, University of Maryland
Hamilton J (2008) Silvopasture: establishment and management principles for pine forests in the Southeastern United States. USDA National Agroforestry Center and Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lincoln, USA
Jose S, Dollinger J (2019) Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agrofor Syst 93(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8
Karki U (2015) Handbook for training field extension and technical assistance personnel sustainable agroforestry practices in the Southeastern United States: training handbook. Tuskegee University, Tuskegee
Kurtz WB (2000) Economics and policy of agroforestry. In: Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA, pp 321–360
Matthews S, Pease SM, Gordon AM, Williams PA (1993) Landowner perceptions and the adoption of agroforestry practices in southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 21(2):159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705227
Mayerfeld D, Rickenbach M, Rissman A (2016) Overcoming history: attitudes of resource professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in southwest Wisconsin. Agrofor Syst 90(5):723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9954-7
Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 61(1):311–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70
Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61–62:281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_20
Montambault JR, Alavalapati JRR (2005) Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: a decade in review. Agrofor Syst 65(2):151–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-0124-6
Moorhead DJ, Dickens ED (2012) Agroforestry: a profitable land use. an overview of the 12th North American Agroforestry conference. Agrofor Syst 86(3):299–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9581-x
Munsell JF, Addlestone BJ, Bukowski CJ, Nkembi L, Kingsly N, Moore EA (2018) Relationships between agroforestry and community development according to practitioners. Agrofor Syst 92(5):1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0084-7
Napier TL, Tucker M, McCarter S (2000) Adoption of conservation production systems in three Midwest watersheds. J Soil Wat Con 55(2):123–134
Orefice JN, Carroll J (2017) Silvopasture – It’s not a load of manure: Differentiating between silvopasture and wooded livestock paddocks in the Northeastern United States. J for 115(1):71–72. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-016
Pannell DJ (1999) Economics, extension and the adoption of land conservation innovations in agriculture. Int J Soc Econ 26(7/8/9):999–1014. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299910245769
Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57(3):173–186. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809108210
Pent GJ, Greiner SP, Munsell JF, Tracy BF, Fike JH (2020a) Lamb performance in hardwood silvopastures, II: animal behavior in summer. Trans Anim Sci 4(1):363–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz177
Pent GJ, Greiner SP, Munsell JF, Tracy BF, Fike JH (2020b) Lamb performance in hardwood silvopastures, I: animal gains and forage measures in summer. Trans Anim Sci 4(1):385–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txz154
Primdahl J (1999) Agricultural landscapes as places of production and for living in: owner’s versus producer’s decision making and the implications for planning. Landsc Urban Plan 46:143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00038-9
Rogelberg SG, Stanton JM (2007) Introduction: understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organ Res Methods 10(2):195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693
Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adoption conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manag 46(1):19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/713676702
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR (2004) Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Eco Econ 49(3):349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.015
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR, Kalmbacher RS (2004) Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method. Agric Syst 81(3):185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.09.004
Strauss AL, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, London
Strong N, Jacobson MG (2005) A case for consumer-driven extension programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania. Small Scale Econ Manag Pol 4(2):215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-006-0002-x
Stutzman E, Barlow RJ, Morse W, Monks D, Teeter L (2019) Targeting educational needs based on natural resource professionals’ familiarity, learning, and perceptions of silvopasture in the southeastern US. Agrofor Syst 93(1):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0260-4
Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL, Aust WM (2014a) Potential adoption of agroforestry riparian buffers based on landowner and streamside characteristics. J Soil Wat Con 69(2):140–150. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.140
Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL (2014b) Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry riparian buffers. Agrofor Syst 88(4):619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9678-5
USDA NASS (2019) 2017 Census of Agriculture: United States summary and state data. Geographic Area Series, vol 1. Part 51. AC-17-A-51
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Villamor GB, van Noordwijk M, Djanibekov U, Chiong-Javier ME, Catacutan D (2014) Gender differences in land-use decisions: Shaping multifunctional landscapes? Curr Optic Environ Sustain 6:128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.015
Walter D (2011) Silvopasture’s effect on growth and development of white and black oaks in an intensively managed upland Central Hardwood Forest. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_16
Wilkens P, Munsell JF, Fike JH, Pent GJ, Frey GE (2021) Is livestock producers’ interest in silvopasture related to their operational perspectives or characteristics? Agroforest Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00664-0
Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agrofor Syst 59(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026193204801
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkens, P., Munsell, J.F., Fike, J.H. et al. Thinning forests or planting fields? Producer preferences for establishing silvopasture. Agroforest Syst 96, 553–564 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00665-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00665-z