Content uploaded by Julián Chará
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julián Chará on May 31, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Silvopastoral Systems
and their Contribution to Improved Resource
Use and Sustainable Development Goals:
Evidence from Latin America
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals:
Evidence from Latin America
Published by
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Recommended citation
Chará J., Reyes E., Peri P., Otte J., Arce E., Schneider F. 2019. Silvopastoral Systems and their Contri-
bution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America.
FAO, CIPAV and Agri Benchmark, Cali, 60 pp.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), the Centre for Research on Sustainable Agriculture (CIPAV) and agri benchmark
concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specic companies or
products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have
been endorsed or recommended by FAO, CIPAV and agri benchmark in preference to others of a simi-
lar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reect the views or policies of FAO, CIPAV and Agri Benchmark.
ISBN 978-92-5-131192-9 FAO
ISBN 978-958-9386-83-5 CIPAV
E-ISBN 978-958-9386-84-2 CIPAV
© FAO, 2019
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCom-
mercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commer-
cial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no
suggestion that FAO endorses any specic organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo
is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative
Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along
with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The
original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the
Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as at pre-
sent in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party,
such as tables, gures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that
reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringe-
ment of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/
publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use
should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licen-
sing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Cover Photo. Las Tinajas farm. Michoacan, Mexico. Photo: J. Chará
II
Contents
Preface V
Acknowledgments VIII
Acronyms IX
Executive Summary X
Introduction 1
Overview of SPS 5
Geographic distribution 6
SPS benets 7
The contribution of SPS to SDGs 11
Case Studies of the Adoption of SPS in Latin America 13
Methods and metrics 18
Results 19
Conclusions and Recommendations 25
Factors aecting the impact and adoption of SPS 25
Scope of SPS adoption in Latin America 27
Recommendations to support SPS adoption 30
Research needs 31
References 33
Annexes 39
Annex 1: Methods and metrics 39
Annex 2: Changes in main indicators over time 40
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
III
Petequi Farm. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo M. Kohut-WAP.
IV
Preface
Livestock are central to many of the Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs) and can directly or indirectly contribu-
te to most of them. The main potential contributions of
livestock to the SDGs pertain to three major domains: (i)
food security and livelihoods, (ii) human health (commu-
nicable and non-communicable diseases), and (iii) ecosys-
tem sustainability and climate change.
However, the sector’s sustainability can only be improved
eectively through concerted action by all stakeholder
groups. Given the public-good nature of the sector’s en-
vironmental, social and economic challenges and its in-
creasing economic integration, collective global action is
essential.
The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock, established
in 2011, is a multi-stakeholder partnership mechanism with
the aim to foster and guide the sustainable development
of the global livestock sector in alignment with the SDG
framework of the UN Agenda 2030. It provides a platform
to address comprehensively the sector’s multiple challen-
ges towards sustainable development through facilitating
global dialogue and encouraging local practice and policy
change, focusing on innovation, capacity building, and in-
centive systems and enabling environments.
The achievements of the Global Agenda have proven
that multi-stakeholder partnerships are a powerful coo-
peration approach to support the implementation of the
SDGs on issues related to livestock and the four priorities
agreed during the 2018 Global Forum for Food and Agricul-
ture (GFFA): food and nutrition security, livelihoods and
economic growth, health and animal welfare and climate
and natural resource use.
Therefore, the strategic approach in the Global Agenda
has evolved from a rst phase where the seven stake-
holder clusters were the main focus to consolidate the
multi-stakeholder vision, to a situation where the action
networks have been prioritized to foster knowledge pro-
duction, pilots and practical impact at local level. The
action networks are the specic technical initiatives the
Global Agenda liaises with to foster concrete livestock
sustainability aspects.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
V
ISPS with Tithonia diversifolia. San José Farm. Valle del Cauca, Colombia Photo F. Uribe.
VI
As part of the Global Agenda, the Global Network on Sil-
vopastoral Systems (GNSPS) promotes the scaling-up of
silvopastoral systems worldwide. At global level there
are many examples of silvopastoral systems (SPS) con-
tributing to sustainable livestock production by redu-
cing impact on natural resources, increasing productive
eciency and protability, improving food security and
animal welfare and contributing to the mitigation and
adaptation to climate change.
This document represents a joint eort between two
action networks of the Global Agenda: (i) Closing the
Eciency Gap and (ii) the Global Network on Silvopas-
toral Systems. A framework for evaluating natural re-
source use eciency is applied to a variety of silvopas-
toral production models to determine productivity and
their socio-economic and environmental benets. It
presents an overview of SPS, their main characteristics
and advantages regarding production and benets for
the environment and climate, and their contribution to
the SDGs, describing the results of ten case studies of
adoption of SPS in diverse contexts in Colombia, Mexico,
and Argentina, with a focus on land productivity, meat
and milk production, and economic performance at the
farm level. Based on the ndings, a number of policy re-
commendations are made with a view to scaling-up and
promoting SPS in Latin America and other regions.
Since all success stories include strong policy develop-
ment components, only with conducive public policies
which allow to link small scale producers to inputs, mar-
kets and capacity building measures the programmes
have been successful.
I congratulate the leaders of this initiative for showca-
sing the important role of silvopastoral systems towards
achieving the SDGs.
Fritz Schneider
Chair
Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
VII
Acknowledgments
This publication is the result of collaboration between two Action Networks
of the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock: Closing the Eciency Gap
and the Global Network on Silvopastoral Systems (GNSPS).
The report was prepared by Julián Chará (CIPAV), Ernesto Reyes (agri bench-
mark), Pablo Peri (INTA), Joachim Otte (BEAR), Fritz Schneider (GASL) and
Eduardo Arce (GASL).
The report greatly beneted from the comments of two members of the
Academic Cluster of GASL: Liz Wedderburn (AgResearch) and Rogerio Mar-
tins Mauricio (UFSJ).
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the project Mains-
treaming Sustainable Cattle Ranching, FEDEGAN, the Comité de Ganaderos
del Caquetá in Colombia, Fundación Produce Michoacán in Mexico, the INTA
and CREA in Argentina, and World Animal Protection from the UK for all the
support to carry out the studies. Juan José Molina, José Manuel Gómez, Luis
Solarte, Leonardo Manzano, Fernando Uribe, Enrique Murgueitio and Gon-
zalo Villegas in Colombia, Martha Xochitl Flores, Carlos Sánchez and Ulises
Villagomez in México, Jorge Esquivel, Luis Colcombet, Hugo Fassola, Belén
Rossner, Germán Kimmich, Paola González and Patricia Egolf in INTA, and
the farm owners of La Luisa, Petequí, El Hatico Natural Reserve, Asturias,
Pinzacua, and Villa Mery in Colombia, Los Huarinches and Ejido La Concha in
Mexico, and El Molino, La Pendiente and Plantaciones Tabay de Coulon S.A
in Argentina.
The authors would also like to acknowledge José Antonio Riascos for his
contribution to graphic design and publishing.
The project Colombia Mainstreaming Sustainable Cattle Ranching is funded
by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the UK-Department for Busi-
ness, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), administered by the World Bank,
and carried out by FEDEGAN, CIPAV, The Nature Conservancy, and the Fon-
do Acción, with participation of the Colombian Ministries of Environment
and Agriculture. The project provided productive, economic and environ-
mental information, and four of the studied farms are also participating in
the project.
The Thünen Institute of Farm Economics, based in Braunschweig, Germany,
and represented by Dr. Claus Deblitz, coordinates various branches of the
agri benchmark Network, among them the Beef and Sheep Network. The
methods, tools and data available within agri benchmark were made availa-
ble for this research and the practice change analysis, which is conducted in
close cooperation with producers, advisors, and local experts.
SPS with Araucaria and Jesuita grass (Axonopus catarinensis). El Molino Farm. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
VIII
Acronyms
ADF Acid Detergent Fibre
CH4 Methane
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture
CIPAV Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent
CREA Regional Consortium of Agricultural Experimentation
DM Dry Matter
ECDBC Colombian strategy for low carbon development
ECM Energy Corrected Milk
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FEDEGAN Colombian Cattle ranchers Federation
FPCM Fat and Protein Corrected Milk
GASL Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock
GEF Global Environment Facility
GFFA Global Forum for Food and Agriculture
GHG Greenhouse gases
GNSPS Global Network on Silvopastoral Systems
HA Hectare
INTA National Institute for Agricultural Technology, Argentina
ISPS Intensive Silvopastoral Systems
LW Live weight
Mg Mega gram
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NDF Neutral Detergent Fibre
PES Payment of Environmental Services
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SPS Silvopastoral Systems
UN United Nations
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
IX
Executive Summary
In 2015 the 193 Member States of the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 aspirational objectives expected to guide development actions of
governments, international agencies, civil society and other institutions over the next 15
years (2016-2030). They integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development – eco-
nomic, social and environmental – mutually depend on each other and form an ‘indivisible
whole’.
Livestock are central to many of the SDGs and can directly or indirectly contribute to most of
them. The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock is a partnership of livestock sector stake-
holders committed to fostering the sustainable development of the sector and aligning li-
vestock sector development with the SDG framework. As part of the Global Agenda, the
Global Network on Silvopastoral Systems promotes the scaling-up of silvopastoral systems
worldwide to support sustainable livestock production.
Silvopastoral systems (SPS) are agroforestry arrangements that purposely combine fodder
plants, such as grasses and leguminous herbs, with shrubs and trees for animal nutrition and
complementary uses. They allow the intensication of cattle production based on natural
processes and are recognized as an integrated approach to sustainable land use. SPS pro-
mote benecial ecological interactions that manifest themselves as increased yield per unit
area, improved resource use eciency and enhanced provision of environmental services.
Latin America has extensively experimented with SPS as an option for sustainable cattle
production and most Latin American countries have accumulated important experience in
adopting and adapting SPS to local circumstances.
An analytical framework for evaluating natural resource use eciency was applied to a va-
riety of silvopastoral production models to determine their productivity, as well as their so-
cio-economic and environmental benets. Results from ten case studies from Argentina, Co-
lombia, and Mexico, covering periods of ten years or longer, are presented to demonstrate
the impacts of SPS adoption. The case studies have been purposefully selected to illustrate
the adoption of dierent types of SPS under a variety of agro-ecological conditions, diverse
production systems, and aiming to address dierent sustainability challenges.
Cattle fattening in a SPS with Pinus and Jesuita grass. Plantaciones Tabay. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
X
Over the study period, four of the ten farms converted all their land to SPS while the remai-
ning six farms converted between 40% and 70%. Forage production per ha increased on nine
of the ten farms with increases ranging from 12 to 733%, depending on the initial condition of
the pastures and on the proportion of land converted. On one farm, forage production per
ha decreased due to the total discontinuation of fertilizer use, which had been exceptionally
high prior to the adoption of SPS. Production of milk/meat per ha increased considerably on
all ten farms due to combined eects of higher stocking densities and improved individual
production. As a result, GHG emissions per 100 kg of milk or live weight added declined on
all farms as SPS were established. Animal welfare was higher than on comparison farms.
One farm, on which impacts of SPS on biodiversity was tracked, had a three-fold increase
in birds, a 60% higher ant count and a doubling of the number of dung beetles compared to
baseline values.
In all cases, at the end of the analysis period, farm returns were higher than costs, and six
of the eight farms in which cattle were not a complement to forestry made an annual prot
per hectare of USD1 500 or more. From the cash ow point of view, the rst period of invest-
ment, however, frequently resulted in a negative cash ow, which requires consideration
with regards to the nancing of the SPS investment.
The case studies provide sound evidence that SPS simultaneously deliver gains in productivi-
ty and protability, environmental improvements, and animal welfare benets and thereby
support a number of SDGs. Despite these benets, SPS have not been widely implemented
due to a variety of technical, nancial and cultural barriers. These include the lack of tech-
nical assistance to farmers to adapt the system to specic local conditions, the technical
complexity of SPS management and the high initial investment requirements.
National policies should support SPS adoption by the provision of dedicated credit lines and
incentives such as payment for environmental services. Furthermore, policies that promote
specialized training for extension workers and technicians on all aspects of SPS are required
to increase their adoption. Public-private alliances, driven by strong farmers’ organizations,
have proven crucial in overcoming technical complexities allowing a substantial number of
farmers to successfully adopt SPS. Finally, it is essential to assess the economic, environ-
mental, and animal welfare implications of SPS adoption for more arrangements, scales, and
agro-ecological conditions to formulate SPS strategies tailored to local specicities.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
XI
ISPS with L. Leucaena and Megathyrsus maximus grass. La Luisa Farm. Cesar, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
XII
ISPS with L. Leucaena and Megathyrsus maximus grass. La Luisa Farm. Cesar, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
Introduction
In 2015 the 193 Member States of the United
Nations adopted the Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 aspirational ob-
jectives (Figure 1) with 169 targets expected to
guide development actions of governments,
international agencies, civil society and other
institutions over the next 15 years (2016-2030).
Replacing the Millennium Development Goals,
the SDGs of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustai-
nable Development have become the univer-
sally endorsed development objectives accep-
ted by and applicable to all countries. They
integrate the three dimensions of sustainable
development – economic, social and environ-
mental – mutually depend on each other and
form an ‘indivisible whole’.
Figure 1 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
1
Plantaciones Tabay. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
2
Livestock are central to many of the SDGs and can directly or indirectly contribute to most
of them. For many of the Goals, livestock can make both positive and negative contribu-
tions and synergies and trade-os exist between Goals. For instance, the strong growth in
demand for livestock products in developing countries, driven by population growth, hi-
gher incomes, and urbanization, represents a huge opportunity for reducing poverty (SDG
1) by enabling hundreds of millions of poor smallholder livestock farmers, processors and
market agents to tap into that market demand. On the other hand, some forms of livestock
production draw heavily on natural resources and a growing livestock sector could signi-
cantly accelerate resource depletion and environmental pollution, thereby undermining
SDGs 14 and 15.
The main potential contributions of livestock, positive as well as negative, to the achie-
vement of the SDGs pertain to the following three major domains: (i) food security and
livelihoods (ii) human health (communicable and non-communicable diseases), and (iii)
ecosystem sustainability and climate change. Dierent forms of livestock production are
practiced around the globe, each with its specic impact prole across the three domains.
The Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock is a partnership of livestock sector stakehol-
ders committed to fostering the sustainable development of the sector and aligning lives-
tock sector development with the SDG framework. With global population projected to
reach 9.6 billion in 2050, the role of the livestock sector in the sustainability of food and
agriculture will continue to increase. To be sustainable, livestock sector growth needs to si-
multaneously address key environmental, social and economic challenges: increasing scar-
city and competition for natural resources, climate change, widespread poverty and food
insecurity, and persistent as well as emerging threats to animal and human health.
As part of the Global Agenda, the Global Network on Silvopastoral Systems promotes the
scaling-up of silvopastoral systems worldwide to support sustainable livestock, through
the generation, exchange and dissemination of knowledge, the documentation of public
policies, and the facilitation of dialogue.
There is a wide variety of silvopastoral systems (SPS) worldwide contributing to the sus-
tainable development of livestock production and rural livelihoods. Silvopastoral systems
provide technological, economic, environmental, and cultural options for supporting liveli-
hoods and commercial activities through sustainable livestock farming. All these are coinci-
dent with the objectives of the Global Agenda and with its support of the SDGs.
This report provides an overview of the main characteristics of SPS, their benets with res-
pect to production, the environment and climate, and their contribution to the SDGs. It also
describes their geographical distribution and the most important SPS arrangements in La-
tin America. Subsequently, the report presents the results of ten case studies of adoption
of SPS in diverse contexts in Colombia, Mexico, and Argentina, with a focus on land pro-
ductivity, meat and milk production, and economic performance at the farm level. Finally,
based on the ndings, a number of recommendations are made with a view to scaling-up
and promoting SPS in Latin America and other regions.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
3
SPS with scattered fruit trees. El Volga Farm. Caquetá, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
4
Overview of SPS
Silvopastoral systems (SPS) are agroforestry
arrangements that purposely combine fodder
plants, such as grasses and leguminous herbs,
with shrubs and trees for animal nutrition and
complementary uses (Murgueitio
et al.
2011).
They allow the intensication of cattle produc-
tion based on natural processes and are recog-
nized as an integrated approach to sustainable
land use (Nair
et al.
2009). SPS promote bene-
cial ecological interactions that may manifest
themselves as increased yield per unit area, im-
proved resource use eciency and enhanced
provision of environmental services. As a result,
farm income can be raised or diversied, both di-
rectly through increased sales of timber, animals
and animal products, and indirectly through be-
necial eects of soil conservation, the provision
of shelter for livestock and improved animal wel-
fare. Thus, these systems can be more produc-
tive, protable and sustainable than specialized
forestry or animal production on their own (Jose
2009, Peri
et al.
2016).
The main SPS comprise: i) scattered trees in
pasturelands, ii) timber plantations with lives-
tock grazing areas, iii) pastures between tree
alleys, windbreaks, live fences, fodder banks
with shrubs and iv) intensive silvopastoral sys-
tems (Murgueitio
et al.
2015, Chará
et al.
2017).
Intensive silvopastoral systems (ISPS) combi-
ne high-density cultivation of fodder shrubs (4
000–40 000 plants ha-1) with improved grasses;
and tree or palm species at densities of 100–600
trees ha-1. These systems are managed under ro-
tational grazing with occupation periods of 12 to
24 hours and 40 to 50-day rest periods, including
ad libitum provision of clean water and minera-
lized salt in each paddock (Calle
et al.
2012, Mur-
gueitio
et al.
2016).
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
5
Geographic distribution
SPS are found worldwide, either intentionally implemented by farmers in dierent arran-
gements or as a result of an adaptation and management of natural ecosystems to provide
shelter and services as, for example, in the Dehesa and Montado ecosystems on the Iberian
Peninsula, El Chaco in South America and several areas of Africa and Asia (Ferraz-de-Olivei-
ra 2016, Kunst
et al.
2016, Le Houerou 1987, Soni et al. 2016). In Europe and North America
there is increasing interest in the introduction of the tree and shrub components either
in integrated systems to produce wood, fruits or nuts in alley cropping systems, as win-
dbreaks or to provide extra nutrients to livestock by direct browsing or after pruning or
coppicing trees (Orece et al. 2017, McAdam 2005, Vandermeulen et al. 2018, Papanastasis
et al. 2009). In Australia, farmers have developed a system where Leucaena is cultivated at
high density integrated with grasses (Shelton and Dalzell 2007).
In Latin America, farmers practice a wide variety of SPS ranging from small-scale fodder
banks for cut and carry (through live fences in Mesoamerica and the Andean mountains or
natural regeneration of native trees throughout the region) to large commercial areas with
ISPS in Mexico and Colombia, timber-beef production in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay
or integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems in Brazil, among many others (Murgueitio et
al. 2016, Somarriba et al. 2018, Peri et al. 2016, Nunes et al. 2010).
In Colombia, the project Mainstreaming biodiversity into sustainable cattle ranching, along
with other initiatives has promoted the establishment of SPS in ve regions of the country.
The systems include live fences, scattered trees in pastures, fodder banks and intensive
silvopastoral systems with Leucaena leucocephala and Tithonia diversifolia (Murgueitio et
al. 2015). ISPS with L. leucocephala have also been promoted in Mexico where more than
10 thousand hectares have been planted in the last decade involving 1 800 farms (beef and
milk) under the technical supervision of Fundación Produce Michoacan (Solorio et al. 2012).
SPS have also become an economical, ecological and productive alternative in Argentina
where exotic tree species or managed native forests are incorporated into farming systems
allowing the production of trees and livestock from the same unit of land (Peri et al, 2016).
The dierence in conditions in the southern part of South America (geography, climate,
culture, and markets) has stimulated the development of dierent SPS in the region. For
example, in the Argentinean provinces of Corrientes and Misiones (Mesopotamia region),
SPS with highly productive pine trees and C4 grasses have mainly been adopted by cattle
farmers as an alternative to diversify production and increase the protability as compared
with traditional farming and forestry systems (Colcombet et al. 2015).
6
SPS benets
The main benets of SPS, when compared to treeless pastures are:
i) increased production of higher quality forages, which reduces the need of supplemen-
tation from external sources (Mojardino et al. 2010, Barahona et al. 2014);
ii) increased (up to 4-fold) cattle production per ha (Thornton and Herrero 2010);
iii) higher storage of carbon in both aboveground and belowground compartments of the
system (Nair et al. 2010, Montagnini et al. 2013);
iv) improvement of soil properties due to greater uptake of nutrients from deeper soil
layers, enhanced availability of nutrients from leaf-litter and increased nitrogen input by
N2-xing trees (Nair et al. 2007, Vallejo et al. 2010, Cubillos et al. 2016);
v) enhanced resilience of the soil to degradation, nutrient loss, and climate change, (Ibra-
him et al. 2010, Harvey et al. 2013, Murgueitio et al. 2013);
vi) improved water holding and inltration capacity of the soil which contributes to the
regulation of the hydrological cycle by reducing runo intensity (Jose 2009, Rios et al.
2007);
vii) habitats of higher biodiversity (Nair et al. 2010, Sáenz et al. 2007, Giraldo et al. 2011,
Montoya-Molina et al. 2016); and
viii) improved animal welfare (Broom et al. 2013).
ISPS in El Hatico Natural Reserve, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo M. Kohut-WAP.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
7
Biomass and livestock production: SPS produce more dry matter, digestible energy, and
crude protein per hectare than purely grass-based systems and thus can increase milk
and/or meat production while reducing the need for external inputs such as chemical
fertilizers and concentrate feeds (Murgueitio et al. 2011, Ribeiro et al. 2016). In ISPS esta-
blished in dry regions of Colombia, biomass production, including grasses and Leucaena,
ranged from 15.6 to 19.2 Mg of dry matter (DM) ha-1 year-1 and protein production from
2.86 to 3.12 Mg ha-1 year-1 (Chará et al. 2017). In the same region DM production in degra-
ded pastures averages 7.0 Mg ha-1 year-1 (Cajas-Girón et al. 2011). In Mexico, DM yield on
three farms adopting ISPS with Leucaena varied between 3.62 and 4.79 Mg ha-1 per rota-
tion, more than three times higher than in an adjacent farm with a monoculture of star
grass (Cynodon plectostachyus) (Solorio-Sánchez et al. 2011). In the Northeast of Argenti-
na, SPS with Grevillea (timber tree) and Urochloa grass allowed a three-fold increment in
the stocking rate when compared to adjacent open pastures (Lacorte and Esquivel 2009,
Colcombet et al. 2015). In the same region, the grass Axonopus catarinensis used in SPS
produced 41% more biomass and had higher protein content under shade (38% reduction
in photosynthetically active radiation) than in open pastures (Pachas 2010). In Patagonia
(Argentina), SPS increased the productivity of pastures by ~20-35% in relation to mixed
improved pastures without trees (Peri et al. 2005). In addition to the higher production
and availability of biomass for cattle, the nutritional quality of this biomass is also impro-
ved, as fodder shrubs incorporated into SPS contain almost three times as much protein
as tropical grasses (18-30% in shrubs vs 4-12% in grass) and have a lower ber content with
values under 41% of neutral detergent ber (NDF) and 30% of acid detergent ber (ADF)
(Murgueitio et al. 2015).
Due to the above traits, in ISPS, production of beef or milk per animal and per ha is in-
creased. In an ISPS in Colombia with Leucaena, star grass and timber trees the amount
of meat produced increased from 74 kg (live weight) ha-1 year-1 to 1 060 kg ha-1 year-1
(Mahecha et al. 2011). Similar results were obtained in Mexico where production of meat
increased from 456 kg ha-1 year-1 on improved pastures to 1 971 kg in an ISPS with L. leu-
cocephala (Solorio-Sánchez et al. 2011). Similarly, Thornton and Herrero (2010) estimated
a 2.7 and 4.8-fold increase in milk and meat production respectively when Leucaena was
incorporated in the diet with a reduction in the amount of GHG per unit of product.
In an ISPS with T. diversifolia in the Amazons region of Colombia, Rivera et al. (2015)
found an increment of 44% in total fodder biomass and 58% in milk production per ha as
a result of a higher carrying capacity and individual milk yield when compared to treeless
Urochloa-Brachiaria pastures. Milk quality was also improved as the production of pro-
tein, fat, and total solids were 29, 33 and 36% higher respectively in the ISPS.
ISPS with T. diversifolia and Brachiaria. La Santa María Farm. Caquetá, Colombia. Photo F. Uribe.
8
Carbon storage and GHG emissions: Tree incorporation in croplands and pastures results
in greater net C storage above- and belowground (Montagnini and Nair 2004). Estimates
of carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems range from 0.29 to 15.21 Mg
ha-1 yr-1 aboveground and from 30 to 300 Mg C ha−1 up to 1 m depth in the soil (Nair et al.
2009, Nair 2011). For SPS, the estimated aboveground carbon sequestration potential
ranges from 1.5 Mg ha-1 yr-1 (Ibrahim et al. 2010) to 6.55 Mg ha-1 yr-1 (Kumar et al. 1998).
In Queensland, Australia, Radrizzani et al. (2011) found that Leucaena SPS accumulated
between 79 and 267 kg ha-1 yr-1 more than adjacent pure grass plots. In the Patagonia
region of Argentina, 148.4 Mg C ha–1 were stored in SPS, of which approximately 85%
was stored in the soil, 7% in belowground biomass (understory and tree roots) and 8% in
aboveground biomass. Belowground biomass thus represented an important C storage
pool in the ecosystem (Peri et at. 2017a).
GHG emissions per unit of animal product are reduced in SPS as a result of higher produc-
tion eciency (lower age at rst calving, shorter calving intervals, higher weight gains,
increased milk yields) and improved dietary composition. As a result of higher nutrient
quality in SPS diets, the amount of CH4 emitted per kg of dry matter consumed (and
per kg of product) is reduced (Barahona et al. 2014). Thornton and Herrero (2010) when
modelling potential measures to reduce GHG emissions in the tropics, estimated that
the emissions per unit of milk and meat produced could be reduced by 57% and 73% res-
pectively when concentrates and part of the basal diet were replaced by leaves of L.
leucocephala.
Biodiversity and soil quality: The presence of shrubs and trees in SPS have demonstrated
eects on biodiversity by creating complex habitats for wild animals and plants (Harvey
et al. 2006, Moreno and Pulido 2009), harbouring a richer soil biota (Rivera et al. 2013,
Montoya-Molina et al. 2016), and increasing connectivity between forest fragments
(Rice and Greenberg, 2004). In farmed landscapes, SPS provide food and cover for birds,
serving as wildlife corridors where unique species assemblages can be found (McAdam
et al. 2005, Murgueitio et al. 2011, Broom et al. 2013). In the Quindío region of Colombia,
the areas with SPS were found to have three times as many bird species as pasture areas
without trees (Fajardo et al. 2010). In the Argentinean Patagonia, it was found that the
relative abundance and richness of birds, insects, and understory vascular plants was
increased in SPS due to the enrichment of the habitat with trees of dierent ages, and
structures such as dead trees and fallen logs (Peri et al. 2017b).
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
9
Higher biodiversity in the production areas and their surroundings also helps providing
important environmental services for the farm such as pollination, pest control and wa-
ter regulation. Regarding pest control, Giraldo
et al.
(2011) found reduced numbers of
horn y larvae in areas with SPS due to the increased activity of dung beetles. In Brazil
fungal strains isolated from SPS were very eective in controlling immature stages of
spittlebug (Mahanarva spectabilis) one of the major insect pests of forage grasses across
tropical America (Campagnani 2017).
Several studies have demonstrated eects of SPS on the physical, chemical and micro-
biological properties of the soil. The shrubs and trees in the SPS add layers of vegeta-
tion capable of transforming solar energy into biomass, which includes the formation of
roots that penetrate to deeper soil layers, from where they extract nutrients and water
(Nair 2011, Chará
et al.
2015). The greater number of strata also generates more abundant
and heterogeneous biomass that is deposited on the soil in the form of leaves, branches,
fruits, resins and exudates with important eects on nutrients, organic matter and biota
(Vallejo
et al.
2012). These benets are complemented by the eect of nitrogen-xing
trees and shrubs and other associations between trees and microorganisms that increa-
se the availability of vital nutrients for the production of biomass (Malchair
et al.
2010).
In southwestern Colombia, Vallejo
et al.
(2010) found that soils under SPS had a higher
percentage of macro- and micro-pores, less bulk density (<1.4 vs. 1.52 g-cc-3) and less
penetration resistance (<3.3 vs. 3.98 MPa) than soils under pasture monocultures. The-
se traits are associated with improved water retention and reduced runo. In studies
carried out in Costa Rica and Nicaragua, in pastures without trees water runo was equi-
valent to 28-48% of the precipitation while it was less than 10% in SPS (Ríos
et al.
2007).
Animal welfare: In SPS, animal welfare is improved
as a result of higher availability of nutrients than in
pasture-only systems, reduced heat stress due to the
provision of shade, the possibility of concealment
which reduces fear and anxiety, and a reduction of
ectoparasites (Giraldo
et al.
2011, Broom
et al.
2013).
Farm economics: A number of studies have demons-
trated that the introduction of ISPS increased yield
and improved farm protability (Murgueitio
et al.
2015). For example, Rivera
et al.
(2015) found that the
income from milk sales was 42.1% higher in SPS com-
pared to conventional pastures. When adopting SPS,
after the initial establishment and associated cost
and a stabilization period, the higher productivity per
hectare generates returns that ensure the economic
viability of ISPS. From a mid-term perspective, the im-
plementation cost is more than compensated by the
increase in farm returns due to higher productivity
(Chará
et al.
2017).
San Diego Farm. Quindío, Colombia.
Photo J. Chará.
10
The contribution of SPS to SDGs
Most of the aspects and mechanisms by which SPS can make important contributions
to the SDGs have been mentioned in the previous section (SPS benets). In small and
medium-scale farming, the inclusion of trees and shrubs improves and diversies food
production, reduces the dependence on external inputs, and reduces climatic and eco-
nomic vulnerability and thereby contributes to improved livelihoods (SDG 1) and food
security (SDG 2) in rural areas.
SPS make an important contribution to SDG 13, related to climate action, since they in-
crease carbon sequestration, reduce GHG emissions per unit of product, and reduce the
vulnerability of livestock production to climate change as they stabilize forage availabi-
lity throughout the year by favouring water inltration and soil conservation. By impro-
ving habitat biodiversity, enhancing connectivity and reducing land degradation in rural
landscapes SPS also contribute to SDG 15, related to terrestrial biodiversity.
They can also contribute to responsible production (SDG 12) by making more ecient
use of natural resources (producing more with less), improving animal welfare and redu-
cing morbidity and mortality, and by enhancing nutrient cycling and other natural pro-
cesses, which reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
SPS can also increase economic benets by improving protability as a result of higher
gains in land and animal productivity and thereby contribute to SDG 8 (decent work and
economic growth).
Brangus cattle in a SPS with Hybrid Pine. Estancia La Victoria. Corrientes, Argentina. Photo D Sempe.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
11
ISPS with T. diversifolia and star grass. La Joya Farm. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo. J. Chará.
12
Case Studies of the Adoption
of SPS in Latin America
Global demand for beef and milk is expected to
grow over the next decades, which, to be sa-
tised, will require a signicant amount of ad-
ditional natural resource use. Past and current
beef and milk production have already occurred
at the expense of natural ecosystems and have
made signicant contributions to the emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHG) fuelling climate
change (Steinfeld
et al.
2006). These impacts
have important implications for Latin America,
as cattle production largely relies on extensive
ranching systems, with low stocking rates and
high GHG emissions per kg of product (O’Mara
2011, González
et al.
2015).
Against this background, recent studies on SPS
have demonstrated the possibility of sustaina-
ble intensication of cattle ranching, producing
more meat and milk of higher quality, reducing
GHG emissions (per kg of product) and resto-
ring degraded ecosystems. Latin America has
extensively experimented with SPS as an option
for sustainable cattle production and most Latin
American countries have accumulated impor-
tant experience in adopting and adapting SPS
to local circumstances.
Ten case studies from Argentina, Colombia,
and Mexico have been selected to illustrate the
adoption of SPS. Colombia is currently imple-
menting a large-scale SPS project (See box 1), ai-
ming to achieve an important regional coverage
of SPS for cattle production. In the Michoacán
region of Mexico public-private alliances, led by
producers, have converted more than 10 000 ha
of pasture monoculture to SPS. Finally, in Argen-
tina, in the region of Misiones and Corrientes,
large-scale timber industries have introduced
beef production, alongside timber production,
by implementing SPS.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
13
ISPS with Leucaena and Megathyrsus.
El Hatico Natural Reserve. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo M. Kohut-WAP.
14
Box 1 Project:
Mainstreaming Sustainable Cattle Ranching in Colombia
The project is funded by the UK Government and the
Global Environment Fund (GEF) under administration
of the World Bank, and is carried out by the Colombian
Cattle Ranchers Federation (FEDEGAN), the Centre
for Research on Sustainable Agricultural Production
Systems (CIPAV), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and
Fondo Acción with participation of the Ministries of
Environment and Agriculture. Its main objective is
to promote the adoption of environment-friendly
silvopastoral cattle ranching systems, with the aim of
improving natural resource management, enhancing the
provision of environmental services (biodiversity, land,
carbon, and water), and raising farm productivity.
The project covers more than 2 500 farms in ve
regions of the country and has to date: i) introduced
environmentally-friendly cattle production on close to 50
000 ha (31 000 ha of SPS with low-density trees, 2 650 ha
of intensive SPS, 15 000 ha of forest preserved on farm),
ii) placed 51 900 ha under a Payment for Environmental
Services (PES) scheme, iii) improved stocking rates and
productivity per animal by 15%, iv) enhanced biodiversity
and incorporated/protected 50 globally endangered
plant species on the farms and v) sequestered 1.9
million Mg of CO2eq above and belowground in the
implemented SPS areas. In addition, the project has
signicantly contributed to the development of public
policies, the training of technicians and farmers, and the
development of a network of demonstration farms and
service providers.
The case studies have been purposefully selected to illustrate
the adoption of dierent types of SPS, implemented under di-
verse agro-ecological conditions, dierent production systems,
and trying to address specic sustainability challenges. Six of
the SPS case studies cover the introduction of ISPS while four
case studies refer to other silvopastoral arrangements. Table 1
provides an overview of the main characteristics of each of the
case studies.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
15
Table 1 Main characteristics of the selected case study farms
SPS with Prosopis. Ejido La Concha. Michoacan, Mexico. Photo J. Chará.
16
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
17
Methods and metrics
For each of the case studies, as the rst step, the reference situation (ba-
seline, ‘year 0’), representing the status of the farm before the interven-
tion was assessed. Historical data from farm records were used to dene
the baseline scenario. Then, assisted by advisors, farmers and researchers,
information about the area converted per year and the implications on
forage production, animal yields and farm economics was collected, dis-
cussed and recorded.
For each farm, two scenarios were dened: conventional grazing (before
the adoption of SPS, i.e. baseline) and the SPS scenario. For modelling the
adoption of SPS, farm records, as well as applied research ndings, were
used. Additionally, a panel formed by local and regional experts from di-
erent disciplines contributed to the analysis and discussion. Agri bench-
mark models and comparable methodologies were used for modelling the
scenarios (see Annex 1). A set of variables was selected to assess dierent
aspects of sustainability and modelled over a ten-year period. Table 2 pre-
sents the key variables used to evaluate selected aspects of sustainability.
Table 2 Key variables used to assess selected aspects of sustainability.
For each case study farm, data on the selected variables was collected over
a period of at least ten years. The data was crosschecked with national
and regional research institutions and an external quality protocol was
applied. Interim and nal results were validated by advisors, researchers,
and farmers.
In order to standardize the economic analysis of SPS, the establishment costs
across farms were assumed to have been nanced through commercial
credit with all services (fencing, planting, weed control, fertilizers, water
pumping, pipelines, advice, etc.) being outsourced. To isolate the eects
of the introduction of SPS on farm revenues from those due to economic
uctuations, prices of inputs and products (milk, beef and various classes
of live animals) were kept constant over the period of analysis.
18
Results
Land area converted to SPS and forage production: At the end of year 9,
four farms had converted all their land to SPS while the remaining six
farms had converted between 40% (farm 10) and 70% (farm 3) of their
land to SPS (Table 3). In year 9, farms that dedicated all their land to
SPS, produced between 22 and 28 Mg DM ha-1. In three cases, farms 1,
7 and 8, this represented an increase in forage production per hectare
in the range of 175 to 733%. In the case of farm 4, production of forage
declined by 29% after introducing SPS because the very high baseline
production (40 Mg ha-1) had been due to intensive use of chemical fer-
tilizers (>600 kg ha-1 year-1), which was totally discontinued after the
introduction of SPS.
SPS with forestry arrangements (cases 9 and 10) produced much lower
amounts of forage DM per hectare, as forestry occupied most of the in-
tervention area, but increases were nevertheless notable (33% and 133%).
For more details see Annex 2.
Meat and milk production: On farms 4 and 7, which produced milk and
converted their entire area to ISPS, milk production per hectare in-
creased by 74% and 314% respectively (Table 4). Taking into account the
smaller proportion of area converted to ISPS (46% and 69%), increases
of a similar order of magnitude were seen on farms 2 and 3. Farm 6 had
the highest increment in milk production per hectare, however from
an exceptionally low baseline.
Table 3 Land area converted to SPS and change in forage production
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
19
Table 4 Meat and milk production per hectare in years 0 and 9
Meat production per year, measured as total live weight gain, increased by 683, 842, and 1 116%
on the three beef ranches (farms 1, 5, and 8) that did not have a forestry component, reaching
2 670 kg ha-1 on farm 8 (Table 4). On the two farms, which introduced beef as a complement to
forestry (farms 9 and 10), meat production per hectare was much lower but also substantially
increased over time.
The increases in milk and meat production per area resulted from the combined eects of higher
stocking densities and improved individual production.
GHG emissions: GHG emissions per 100 kg of milk or live weight added were highly correlated with
milk or meat production per hectare (r=-0.84 and -0.66 for milk and meat respectively) and thus
declined on all farms following the production increase after SPS were introduced (Table 5).
Table 5 GHG emissions per 100kg milk/meat in years 0 and 9
20
The farms with highest increases in milk production per hectare relative to the baseli-
ne also achieved the greatest reductions in GHG emissions per unit of milk produced.
However, this relationship was not as clear for beef production, where in some farms
large gains in animal productivity (per hectare) did not result in major reductions in GHG
emissions per kg of beef. For instance, farms 1 and 5 made large gains in live weight
production per hectare (>800%), while emission reductions in CO2-eq per 100 kg LW gain
were below 10%. This was caused by the fact that in both farms the increase in live weight
gain per hectare was mainly the result of a major increase in stocking rate rather than an
increase in individual animal performance.
Additionally, specic studies on GHG emissions carried out on farm 3 showed that: i) ISPS
areas with Leucaena generated 30% less CO2, 98% less CH4, and 89% less N2O soil emis-
sions per ha and month when compared with an adjacent farm with irrigation and high
fertilizer input (Rivera
et al.
2018); ii) heifers fed a silvopastoral diet (26% Leucaena and
74% Star grass on DM basis) produced 33% less CH4 per kg of weight gain than heifers fed
grass only (Molina
et al.
2016); and iii) the emission of CO2eq. per kg of fat and protein co-
rrected milk (FPCM) and per kg of energy corrected milk (ECM) was 13.4% and 12.5% lower
than in a conventional high-input system similar to that of the farm baseline (Rivera
et
al.
2016). Since in ISPS chemical fertilizers are not applied and concentrate feed require-
ments are greatly reduced, ISPS use 55% to 62% less non-renewable energy to produce a
kg of ECM and FPCM than a conventional system. In addition to these reductions in GHG
emissions, the carbon stock on the farm was estimated to be 45.3 Mg ha
-1
aboveground
in the ISPS areas vs. 11.7 Mg ha-1 in the areas with pasture monoculture (Arias
et al.
2009).
Biodiversity: On farm 5, additional research carried out by CIPAV showed a three-fold in-
crease in birds, a 60% higher ant count and a doubling of the number of dung beetles
compared to baseline values.
Animal welfare: SPS oer optimal conditions for ensuring animal welfare. They provide a
large amount of green fodder that meets nutritional needs while trees and shrubs provi-
de shade during the day. Poor body condition and heat stress, seen on comparison farms
practicing extensive cattle ranching, were not observed on the case study farms. The
animals had the freedom to move and a diverse environment to express a wide range
of natural behaviours. In comparison with neighboring non-SPS farms, very short ight
distances and calm reactions, e.g. during movement between paddocks, indicated cattle
had no fear of humans.
Farm economics: The period selected for the analysis of the farm economics of SPS intro-
duction comprised the following stages: (i) initial interventions (1-2 years for selection
and establishment – SPS areas start to produce at 6-8 months after establishment), (ii)
scaling up of interventions (3-5 years for increasing SPS areas and consolidating farm
management – some areas in full production, others partially established) and (iii) full
implementation (4-6 years – all SPS areas in full production). In the two cases where SPS
were implemented in conjunction with forestry, the period of economic analysis was lon-
ger (up to 27 years) so as to include timber sales.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
21
Figure 2
Net farm cash ow (USD) and
investment per hectare over time
Case 1
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 865
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 3
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 2 606
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 4
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 635
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 5
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 195
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 6
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 621
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 7
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 274
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 9
1,000
800
600
Cash ow/ha
Investment (USD/ha): 1 029
200
400
0
-200
0 2 4 86 10 12 14
Year
Case 10
1,000
800
600
Cash ow/ha
Investment (USD/ha): 808
200
400
00 2 4 76 10
-200
12 14
Year
Case 2
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 2 362
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
Case 8
3,500
2,500
1,500
Cash ow/ha
Year
Investment (USD/ha): 1 274
-500
500
-1,500
0 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9
22
Investments per hectare converted to SPS ranged from USD808 (farm 10) to USD2 606
(farm 3) with an average of USD1 543. (As the exchange rate at the year of SPS introduc-
tion was used over the time frame of each case study, comparisons between farms in USD
are aected by dierences in exchange rate between years.) SPS strategies using scatte-
red trees and/or live fences rather than high densities of shrubs and trees incurred lower
investment costs (e.g. farm 5 with USD1 195/ha). Lower costs were also incurred in the fo-
restry-beef combination (farms 9 and 10), in which some of the required SPS investments
had already been assumed by the forestry operation (e.g. fencing).
In a number of cases, three periods of cash ow can be identied (Fig. 2). An initial pe-
riod of negative cash ow due to a negative baseline situation and/or to a period of ini-
tial investments, in which animal production was not yet beneting from increments in
land productivity. A period of cash ow stabilization characterized by a gradual increase
in farm returns due to increments in land and cattle productivity. And nally, a highly po-
sitive cash ow compared to the baseline.
In all cases, at the end of the analysis period, farm returns were higher than costs, and
six of the eight farms, in which cattle were not a complement to forestry, made a prot
per hectare of USD1 500 or more (Fig. 2). The positive development of farm prots over
time, in many cases from a negative baseline, clearly demonstrates that investments in
SPS are not only environmentally benecial but also economically sound. From the cash
ow point of view, the rst period of investment can, however, result in a negative cash
ow, which requires consideration with regards to the nancing of the SPS investment.
ISPS with Eucalyptus, Leucaena and Megathyrsus. La Luisa farm. Cesar, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
23
La Luisa Farm. Cesar , Colombia. Photo C. García.
24
Conclusions and Recommendations
The case studies provide evidence for the ability of SPS to generate a ‘triple-win’ by com-
bining gains in productivity and protability with environmental improvements and ani-
mal welfare benets. However, the type of SPS selected, the amount of land converted,
the nancial requirements as well as the impacts of adopting SPS varied across farms.
Thus, to be successful, eorts of expanding SPS require a sound understanding of the
biological, economic and political factors determining its adoption.
Factors aecting the impact and adoption of SPS
The baseline conditions of the case study farms determined the objective of the adoption
of SPS, the SPS model selected, its ‘biological’ impact, and the nancial outcome.
For instance, in farms 1, 5, 6 and 8, the productive and economic baseline situation was
very poor. These farms practiced extensive cattle raising on degraded land resulting in
very low productivity. To introduce SPS, farm 1 (beef nishing), for example, had to make
major changes in all domains of farm management (e.g. management of land and water,
animal genetics and health, etc.). In such cases, the initial investments are high due to the
complete change required when adopting SPS, leading to negative cash ows. In addi-
tion, farm 1 had to purchase animals every year to take advantage of the increased feed
production, requiring yet more capital over a prolonged period.
A dierent situation presented itself in farms 2, 3, 4 and 7, where the baseline situation
was characterised by a high dependence on external inputs such as fertilizers and con-
centrates. In these farms, the cash ow declined for about 2-3 years as the newly planted
areas had to be taken out of production during preparation and establishment of SPS
and only reached full production one year later. During that period, and depending on
the area of intervention, total forage production (conventional pasture plus new SPS
areas) may have decreased, which could have resulted in negative cash ows in the initial
period.
The level of farm management prior to the adoption of SPS played an important role in
the economic performance of the farm. Farms, which had a relatively high management
level (in terms of record keeping, accounting, planning, and resource management,) be-
fore the introduction of SPS, quickly reached a positive cash ow situation during the pe-
riod of adoption. Farms with lower management levels had to implement major changes,
leading to more dramatic nancial consequences during the period of adoption (longer
negative cash ow periods and therefore higher credit requirements).
In the case of forestry production complemented by beef nishing (farms 9 and 10), the
initial SPS costs were lower than in other cases, mainly due to the fact that major invest-
ments had been assumed by the forestry component (fencing, irrigation, planting). Eco-
nomies of scale (mainly in relation to labour) also played an important role in reducing
the cost of SPS adoption. In these two cases, the major income was derived from timber
sales and the beef nishing enterprise provided additional short and midterm cash ows.
Although in the long term the economic benets of investing in the establishment of
SPS outweighs its costs, the overall uptake may be constrained by the required level of
investment and associated risk, limitations in access to capital and decits in farm mana-
gement capacity.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
25
SPS with Inga trees and stargrass. Pinzacua farm. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
ISPS with Leucaena and star grass. Asturias Farm. Quindío, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
26
Scope of SPS adoption in Latin America
In Latin America, silvopastoral arrangements have the potential to be established
in most of the locations where cattle ranching is practiced. Apart from the arrange-
ments analyzed in the study cases, there are many others that have been develo-
ped and adapted to specic environmental conditions using native tree species and
grasses or adopting new ones suitable for each condition. For each situation or type
of arrangement, there are species of grasses, shrubs or trees that can be selected
according to the soil type, altitude, temperature, precipitation, etc. The following ta-
ble shows the range of conditions suited for the establishment of intensive SPS with
Leucaena leucocephala or Tithonia diversifolia in the tropics.
Table 6 Optimal conditions for the establishment of three ISPS arrangements in Colombia
According to a study carried out by CIPAV and CIAT in Colombia, taking into account
the characteristics presented in Table 6, there is a potential to establish approxima-
tely 2.5 million ha of ISPS with L. leucocephala, 7.7 million ha of ISPS with Tithonia and
Urochloa/Brachiaria grass (Figs. 3a & b), and 0.2 million ha of the SPS with Tithonia and
Kikuyu grass (Cenchrus clandestinus). These 10.4 million hectares only consider opti-
mal conditions for each the systems based on pasture areas already used for livestock
rearing (ECDBC 2015).
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
27
Figure 3 Areas in Colombia suitable for the establishment of ISPS with
(a) L. leucocephala and (b) Tithonia and Urochloa/Brachiaria grass
Source: CIAT-CIPAV 2015
(a) ISPS with L. leucocephala
N
28
(b) ISPS with Tithonia and Urochloa/Brachiaria grass
Source: CIAT-CIPAV 2015
N
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
29
Recommendations to support SPS adoption
The case studies provide sound evidence that SPS simultaneously deliver gains in productivity and
protability, environmental improvements, and animal welfare benets and thereby support a
number of SDGs. Despite these benets, SPS have not been widely implemented due to a variety
of technical, nancial and cultural barriers. These include the lack of technical assistance to farmers
to adapt the system to specic local conditions, the technical complexity of SPS management
and the high initial investment requirements (Chará et al. 2017). Many farmers are not keen
to implement the necessary changes since they view cattle ranching as a low-investment and
low-management activity. Additionally, for ISPS, the technical complexity demands specialized
knowledge that is not always available among farmers, professionals, academia, or commercial
rural extension service providers (Calle et al. 2012).
At farm level, nancial considerations are among the main drivers for adopting SPS. Any
programme to introduce SPS must be underpinned by a detailed nancing plan, which matches
anticipated cash ows with the farmer’s cash conditions over the adoption process. It is important
to foresee critical periods in cash ow and dene strategies to ll the nancial gaps during the
implementation process. This could be done by adapting the rhythm of SPS establishment to cash
ows or by obtaining strategic loans that could be repaid once the negative cash ow period
is overcome. A thorough nancial risk assessment is required in this planning phase. National
policies should support SPS adoption by the provision of dedicated credit lines and incentives
such as payment for environmental services.
As SPS are more complex to manage than pasture monocultures, encouraging adoption of SPS
also requires improving farmers’ access to technical support. Livestock service providers play an
important role in assisting farmers in the implementation of silvopastoral arrangements adapted
to their needs. Technical assistance programmes require special attention during the rst periods
of adoption when the risk of failure is highest and cash ow may be negative. Also, in order to
take full advantage of the benets of SPS adoption, other key aspects of production such as
herd management, strategic supplementation and genetics must also be improved. Thus, policies
that promote specialized training for extension workers and technicians on all aspects of SPS
adoption play an important role in increasing its uptake (Chará et al. 2017).
Another aspect related to services includes the adequate provision of inputs and supplies
(for planting and seeding) and the availability of machinery contracting services. An adequate
regional scale of implementation is crucial in facilitating the access to advisory services, supplies,
and markets.
The results of the case studies highlight the large potential of information exchange between
farmers and countries. At local level, information exchange and cross-learning between farmers
have been among the most important elements for scaling-up of SPS programmes. Public-
private alliances, driven by strong farmer’s organizations, have been crucial in overcoming
technical complexities allowing a substantial number of farmers to successfully adopt SPS. This
was observed in Mexico with ‘Fundación Produce’ and in Argentina with the CREA (Regional
Consortium of Agricultural Experimentation). These programmes spent considerable resources
on capacity building schemes under the leadership of strong farmers’ organizations with the
support of regional/national governmental entities (producers as leaders and agents of change
forming private-public alliances).
Information exchange across countries can accelerate SPS adoption as issues that are considered
barriers in one country may have already been solved in another, as it is the case of timber
production in SPS, which is well developed in Argentina but still incipient in Colombia and Mexico.
30
Research needs
In order to develop tailored strategies that can be used to promote SPS at (sub-)regional and
local level, it is essential to assess the economic, environmental, and animal welfare implica-
tions of SPS adoption for more arrangements, scales, and agro-ecological conditions.
In regions, in which SPS have been shown to be viable options for sustainable cattle ranching,
it is important to quantify their capacity to decrease deforestation, their reduction of the
carbon footprint of cattle farming, and their potential to contribute to the SDGs related to
climate change.
More knowledge of native trees, pastures, and their interactions needs to be generated.
With respect to the tree component of SPS, technology for the introduction of forest species
in rangelands is scarce, especially in tropical countries with relatively little experience in fo-
restry. In these countries, the development of silvicultural practices, markets, and wood-pro-
cessing techniques for timber from silvopastoral systems is in its infancy (Calle et al. 2012).
Progress in current practices is required to improve the protability of the system and to
persuade farmers to introduce trees for timber into regions where the market for forestry
products is not yet developed.
Finally, it is important to develop insurance schemes for the critical implementation periods
of SPS so as to reduce the nancial risks of SPS programmes.
SPS with Araucaria and Jesuita grass. El Molino farm. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
31
ISPS. La Luisa farm. Codazzi, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
32
References
Arias LM, Camargo JC, Dossman MA, Echeverry MA, Rodríguez JA, Molina CH, Molina
EJ, Melo ID (2009) Estimación de biomasa aérea y desarrollo de modelos alométricos
para Leucaena leucocephala en sistemas silvopastoriles de alta densidad en el Valle del
Cauca, Colombia. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente 58: 32-39.
Assurewel Project (2017) Advancing Animal Welfare Assurance. www.assurewel.org.
Barahona R, Sánchez MS, Murgueitio E, Chará J (2014) Contribución de la Leucaena
leucocephala Lam (de Wit) a la oferta y digestibilidad de nutrientes y las emisiones
de metano entérico en bovinos pastoreando en sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos.
En: Premio Nacional de Ganadería José Raimundo Sojo Zambrano, modalidad
Investigación Cientíca. Bogotá, Colombia. Revista Carta Fedegán 140:66-69.
Botreau R, Veissier I, Perny P (2009) Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy
adopted in Welfare Quality. Animal Welfare 18:363–370.
Broom DM, FM Galindo, Murgueitio E (2013) Sustainable, ecient livestock production
with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society
Biological Sciences 280:2013–2025.
Cajas-Girón YS, Cuesta PA, Arreaza-Tavera LC, Barahona-Rosales R (2011) Implementación
de estrategias tecnológicas para mejorar la productividad y sostenibilidad de sistemas
de doble propósito en las sabanas de la región Caribe colombiana. Revista Colombiana
de Ciencias Pecuarias 24:495–201.
Calle Z, Murgueitio E, Chará J (2012) Integrating forestry, sustainable cattle-ranching and
landscape restoration. Unasylva 63:31–40.
Campagnani M, Campos W, Amorim S, Rosa LH, Auad A, Cangussú M, Mauricio R (2017)
Prospection and Fungal Virulence Associated with Mahanarva spectabilis (Hemiptera:
Cercopidae) in an Amazon Silvopastoral System. Florida Entomologist 100: 426-432.
Chará J, Camargo JC, Calle Z, Bueno L, Murgueitio E, Arias L, Dossman M, Molina E (2015)
Servicios ambientales de Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos: mejoramiento del
suelo y restauración ecológica. In: Montagnini F, Somarriba E, Murgueitio E, Fassola
H, Eibl B (Eds) Sistemas Agroforestales. Funciones productivas, socioeconómicas y
ambientales. Serie Técnica Informe Técnico 402, CATIE, Turrialba, Fundación CIPAV,
Cali, pp 331–347.
Chará J, Rivera JE, Barahona R, Murgueitio E, Deblitz C, Reyes E, Mauricio R, Molina J,
Flores M, Zuluaga A (2017) Intensive silvopastoral systems: economics and contribution
to climate change mitigation and public policies. In: Montagnini F (Ed) Integrating
Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty.
Advances in Agroforestry 12. Springer, Dordrecht.
CIAT-CIPAV 2015. Determinación del potencial de reducciones de gases de efecto
invernadero en sistemas silvopastoriles en el proyecto “análisis de sistemas
productivos en colombia para la adaptación al cambio climático”. Final Report. Cali.
Colcombet L, Esquivel J, Fassola H, Goldfarb MC, Lacorte S, Pachas N, Rossner B, Winck
R (2015) Los sistemas silvopastoriles en las provincias de Misiones y Corrientes,
Argentina. In: Montagnini F, Somarriba E, Murgueitio E, Fassola H, Eibl B (Eds) Sistemas
Agroforestales. Funciones productivas, socioeconómicas y ambientales. Serie Técnica
Informe Técnico 402, CATIE, Turrialba, Fundación CIPAV, Cali, pp 105–129.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
33
Cubillos AM, Vallejo V, Arbeli Z, Teran W, Dick R, Molina CH, Molina E, Roldan F (2016) Eect
of the conversion of conventional pasture to intensive silvopastoral systems on edaphic
bacterial and ammonia oxidizer communities in Colombia. European Journal of Soil Biology
72:42–50.
ECDBC (2015) Nota de información de la NAMA Ganadería Bovina Sostenible. Estrategia
Colombiana de Desarrollo Bajo en Carbono, ECDBC. Bogotá.
Fajardo D, Johnston R, Neira L, Chará J, Murgueitio E (2010) Inuencia de los sistemas
silvopastoriles en la diversidad de aves en la cuenca del río La Vieja, Colombia. Recursos
Naturales y Ambiente 58:9–16.
Ferraz-de-Oliveira MI, Azeda C, Pinto-Correia T (2016) Management of Montados and Dehesas
for high nature value: an interdisciplinary pathway. Agrofor Syst 90:1–6.
Giraldo C, Escobar F, Chará J, Calle Z (2011) The adoption of silvopastoral systems promotes
recovery of ecological processes regulated by dung beetles in the Colombian Andes. Insect
Conservation and Diversity 4:115–122.
González R, Sánchez MS, Chirinda N, Arango J, Bolívar DM, Escobar D, Tapasco J, Barahona
R (2015) Limitaciones para la implementación de acciones de mitigación de emisiones de
gases de efecto de invernadero (GEI) en sistemas ganaderos en Latinoamérica. Livestock
Research for Rural Development Volume 27, Article #249. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/12/
gonz27249.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2018.
Harvey C, Medina A, Sánchez D, Vílchez S, Hernández B, Saenz J, Maes JM, Casanoves F,
Ssinclair F (2006) Patterns of animal diversity in dierent forms of tree cover in agricultural
landscapes. Ecological Applications 16:1986–1999.
Harvey C, Chacón M, Donatti C, Garen E, Hannah L, Andrade LA, Bede L, Brown D, Calle A,
Chará JD, Clement C, Gray E, Hoang M, Minang P, Rodríguez A, Seeberg-Elverfeldt C,
Semroc B, Shames S, Smukler S, Somarriba E, Torquebiau E, van Etten J, Wollenberg E
(2013) Climate-smart Landscapes: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation
and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture. Conservation Letters 7:77–90.
Ibrahim M, Guerra L, Casasola F, Neely N (2010) Importance of silvopastoral systems for
mitigation of climate change and harnessing of environmental benets. In: Abberton
M, Conant R, Batello C (Eds) Grassland carbon sequestration: management, policy and
economics. Proceedings of the workshop on the role of grassland carbon sequestration in
the mitigation of climate change. Integrated Crop Management, Vol. 11. FAO, Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1880e/i1880e09.pdf .
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benets: an overview.
Agroforest Syst 76 (1):1–10.
Kumar BM, George SJ, Jamaludheen V, Suresh TK (1998) Comparison of biomass production,
tree allometry and nutrient use eciency of multipurpose trees grown in woodlot and
silvopastoral experiments in Kerala, India. For. Ecol. Manage. 112:145–163.
Kunst C, Navall M, Ledesma R, Silberman J, Anríquez A, Coria D, Bravo S, Gómez A, Albanesi A,
Grasso D, Dominguez Nuñez J, González A, Tomsic P, Godoy J (2016) Silvopastoral Systems
in the Western Chaco Region, Argentina. In: Peri PL, Dube F, Varella A (Eds) Advances in
Agroforestry Chapter 1, pp. 1–8, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Lacorte S, Esquivel J (2009) Sistemas silvopastoriles en la Mesopotamia Argentina. Reseña
del conocimiento, desarrollo y grado de adopción. 1° Congreso nacional de sistemas
silvopastoriles. Posadas, Misiones, Argentina, 14–16/Mayo/2009, pp 70–82.
Le Heoureu H (1987) Indigenous shrubs and trees in the silvopastoral systems of Africa. In:
Stepler H., Nair R. (Eds) Agroforestry: A decade of development. ICRAF, 1987.
34
Mahecha L, Murgueitio M, Angulo J, Olivera M, Zapata A, Cuartas CA, Naranjo JF, Murgueitio
E (2011) Desempeño animal y características de la canal de dos grupos raciales de bovinos
doble propósito pastoreando en sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos. Revista Colombiana
de Ciencias Pecuarias 24:470.
Mc Adam J (2005) Silvopastoral systems in North-West Europe. In: Mosquera-Losada M,
McAdam J, Rigueiro-Rodriguez A (Eds) Silvopastoralism and sustainable management.
Proceedings of the international congress on silvoapastoralism and sustainable land
management. Lugo, Spain, 2005.
Mojardino M, Revell D, Pannell DJ (2010) The potential contribution of forage shrubs to
economic returns and environmental management in Australian dryland agricultural
systems. Agricultural Systems 103:187–197.
Molina IC, Angarita E, Mayorga OL, Chará J, Barahona R (2016) Eect of Leucaena leucoceophala
on methane production of Lucerna heifers fed a diet based on Cynodon plectostachyus.
Livestock Science 185: 24-29.
Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: An under-exploited environmental
benet of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61 & 62:281–298.
Montagnini F, Ibrahim M, Murgueitio E (2013) Silvopastoral systems and climate change
mitigation in Latin America. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 316(2):3–16.
Montoya-Molina S, Giraldo-Echeverri C, Montoya-Lerma J, Chará J, Escobar F, Calle Z (2016)
Land sharing vs. land sparing in the dry Caribbean lowlands: A dung beetles’ perspective.
Applied Soil Ecology 98:204–212.
Moreno G, Pulido F (2009) The functioning, management and persistence of the Dehesas.
In: Rigueiro-Rodríguez A et al. (Eds) Agroforestry in Europe: 127 Current Status and Future
Prospects. Springer Science & Business Media B.V: p127–160.
Murgueitio E, Calle Z, Uribe F, Calle A, Solorio B (2011)
Native trees and shrubs for the productive
rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management 261:1654–1663
Murgueitio E, Chará J, Solarte A, Uribe F, Zapata C, Rivera JE (2013) Agroforestería Pecuaria y
Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos (SSPi) para la adaptación ganadera al cambio climático
con sostenibilidad. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias 26:313–316.
Murgueitio E, Flores M, Calle Z, Chará J, Barahona R, Molina CH, Uribe F (2015) Productividad
en sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos en América Latina. In: Montagnini F, Somarriba E,
Murgueitio E, Fassola H, Eibl B (Eds) Sistemas Agroforestales. Funciones productivas,
socioeconómicas y ambientales. Serie Técnica Informe Técnico 402, CATIE, Turrialba,
Fundación CIPAV, Cali, pp 59–101.
Murgueitio E, Uribe F, Molina C, Molina E, Galindo W, Chará J, Flores M, Giraldo C, Cuartas C,
Naranjo J, Solarte L, González J (2016) Establecimiento y manejo de sistemas silvopastoriles
intensivos con leucaena. In: Murgueitio E, Galindo W, Chará J, Uribe F (Eds) Editorial CIPAV.
Cali, Colombia. 220pp.
Nair PKR (2011) Agroforestry systems and environmental quality: Introduction. Journal of
Environmental Quality 40:784–790.
Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration.
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 172:10–23.
Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter J (2010) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry
systems. Adv. Agron. 108:237–307Nair PKR (2011) Agroforestry systems and environmental
quality: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality 40:784-790.
Nair VD, Haile SG, Michel GA, Nair R (2007) Environmental quality improvement of agricultural
lands through silvopasture in southeastern United States. Scientia Agricola 64:513–519.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
35
Nunes J, Siva G, Cerri CE, Bernoux M, Feigl BJ, Wruck FJ, Cerri CC (2010) Impact of pasture,
agriculture and crop-livestock systems on soil C stocks in Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research
110:175–186.
O’Mara FP (2011) The signicance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas
emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed Science & Technology 166–167:7–15
Orece J, Carroll J, Conroy D, Ketner L (2017) Silvopastoral practices and perspective in the
Northeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems 91:149–160.
Pachas A (2010) Axonopus catarinensis y Arachis pintoi: alternativas forrajeras en sistemas
silvopastoriles de la provincia de Misiones, Argentina. Tesis MS. Escuela para graduados
Ingeniero Agrónomo Alberto Soriano, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos
Aires, 99pp.
Papanastasis VP, Mantzanas K, Dini-Papanastasi O, Ispikoudis I (2009) Traditional agrofo-
restry systems and their evolution in Greece. In: Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, McAdam J, Mos-
quera-Losada MR (Eds) Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects, pp.
89–109. Springer: Dordrecht.
Peri PL, Sturzenbaum MV, Monelos L, Livraghi E, Christiansen R, Moretto A. Mayo JP (2005)
Productividad de sistemas silvopastoriles en bosques nativos de ñire (Nothofagus antarcti-
ca) de Patagonia Austral. In: Proceedings III Congreso Forestal Argentino y Latinoamerica-
no. Corrientes, Argentina, 10 pp.
Peri PL, Dube F, Varella A (2016) Silvopastoral systems in the subtropical and temperate zones
of South America: An overview. In: Peri PL, Dube F, Varella A (Eds) Silvopastoral Systems
in Southern South America, Chapter 1, pp 1–8 Advances in Agroforestry, Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, Switzerland.
Peri PL, Banegas N, Gasparri I, Carranza C, Rossner B, Martínez Pastur G, Cavallero L, López
DR, Loto D, Fernández P, Powel P, Ledesma M, Pedraza R, Albanesi A, Bahamonde H, Ecle-
sia RP, Piñeiro G (2017a) Carbon Sequestration in Temperate Silvopastoral Systems, Argen-
tina. In: Montagnini F (Ed) Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conserva-
tion and Food Sovereignty, Chapter 19, pp 453–478. Advances in Agroforestry 12, Springer
International Publishing.
Peri PL, Caballe G, Hansen NE, Bahamonde HA, Lencinas MV, von Müller AR, Ormaechea S,
Gargaglione V, Soler R, Sarasola M, Rusch V, Borrelli L, Fernandez ME, Gyenge J, Tejera
LE, Lloyd CE, Martínez Pastur G (2017b) Silvopastoral systems in Patagonia, Argentina. In:
Gordon AM, Newman SM, Coleman BRW (Eds) Temperate Agroforestry Systems, Chapter
11, pp. 252–273. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Radrizzani A, Shelton HM, Dalzell SA, Kirchhof G (2011) Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen
under Leucaena leucocephala pastures in Queensland. Crop and Pasture Science 62:337–
345.
Ribeiro RS, Terry SA, Sacramento JP, Rocha e Silveira S, Bento CB, Silva EF, Montovani HC,
Gama MAS, Pereira LG, Tomich TR, Mauricio RM, Chaves A (2016) Tithonia diversifolia as a
supplementary feed for dairy cows. PLoS One 11: e0165751.
Rice RA, Greenberg R (2004) Silvopastoral systems: ecological and socioeconomic bene-
ts and migratory bird conservation. In: Schroth G, Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C,
Vasconcelos HL, Izac A-MN (Eds) Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical
Landscapes. Island Press, Washington, DC: 453–472.
Ríos N, Cárdenas A, Andrade H, Ibrahim M, Jiménez F, Sancho F, Ramírez E, Reyes B, Woo A
(2007) Escorrentía supercial e inltración en sistemas ganaderos convencionales y sil-
vopastoriles en el trópico sub-húmedo de Nicaragua y Costa Rica. Agroforestería en las
Américas 45:66–71.
36
Rivera J, Cuartas CA, Naranjo JF, Tafur O, Hurtado EA, Arenas FA, Chará J, Murgueitio E (2015)
Efecto de la oferta y el consumo de Tithonia diversifolia en un sistema silvopastoril inten-
sivo (SSPi), en la calidad y productividad de leche bovina en el piedemonte Amazónico
colombiano. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 27, Article #189. http://
www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/10/rive27189.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2018.
Rivera J, Chará J, Barahona R (2016) Análisis de ciclo de vida para la producción de leche bo-
vina en un sistema silvopastoril intensivo y un sistema convencional en Colombia. Tropical
and Subtropical Agroecosystems 19:237–251.
Rivera J, Chará J, Barahona R (2018) CH4, CO2 and N2O emissions from grasslands and bovine
excreta in two intensive tropical dairy production systems. Agroforestry Systems https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0187-9.
Rivera L, Armbrecht I, Calle Z (2013) Silvopastoral systems and ant diversity conservation in
a cattle-dominated landscape of the Colombian Andes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-
ronment 181:188–194.
Sáenz JC, Villatoro F, Ibrahim M, Fajardo D, Pérez M (2007) Relación entre las comunidades
de aves y la vegetación en agropaisajes dominados por la ganadería en Costa Rica, Nicara-
gua y Colombia. Agroforestería en las Américas, 45:37–48.
Shelton M, Dalzell S (2007). Production, economic and environmental benets of leucaena
pasture. Tropical Grasslands 41:174–190.
Solorio-Sánchez FJ, Bacab-Pérez HM, Ramírez-Avilés L (2011)
Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensi-
vos: Investigación en el Valle de Tepalcatepec, Michoacán. In: Xóchitl-Flores M, Solorio-Sán-
chez B (Eds) Establecimiento de Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos para la producción de
leche y carne en el trópico de México. Primera etapa del proyecto estratégico de prioridad
nacional. SAGARPA, Fundación Produce Michoacán, COFUPRO, UADY, Morelia, México, 15 pp.
Solorio-Sánchez FJ, Solorio-Sánchez B, Casanova-Lugo F, Ramírez-Avilés L, Ayala-Burgos A,
Ku-Vera J, Aguilar-Pérez C (2012)
Situación actual global de la investigación y desarrollo tec-
nológico en el establecimiento, manejo y aprovechamiento de los sistemas silvopastoriles in-
tensivos. In: IV Congreso Internacional sobre Sistemas Silvopastoriles Intensivos. Fundación
Produce Michoacán, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Morelia, México, 21 -23 mar, pp 33–57.
Somarriba E, Carreño-Rocabado G, Amores F, Caicedo W, Gillés S, Cerda R, Ordóñez J (2018)
Trees of farms for livelihoods, conservation of biodiversity and carbón storage. Evidence
from Nicaragua on this Invisible resource. In: Montagnini F (Ed) Integrating landscapes:
Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty. Advances in Agrofores-
try 12, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Soni M, Subbulakshmi V, Yadava V,Tewari J, Dagar J (2016) Silvopastoral agroforestry sys-
tems: Lifeline for dry regions. In: Dagar J, Tewari J (Eds) Agroforestry research develop-
ments. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, De Haan C (2006) Livestock’s long
shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome.
Thornton PK, Herrero M (2010) Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions
from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Aca-
demy of Science 107(47):19667–19672.
Vallejo VE, Roldán F, Dick RP (2010) Soil enzymatic activities and microbial biomass in an in-
tegrated agroforestry chronosequence compared to monoculture and a native forest of
Colombia. Biology and Fertility of Soils 46(6):577–587.
Vandermeulen S, Ramírez-Restrepo C, Beckers I, Claessens H, Bindelle J (2018) Agroforestry
for ruminants: a review of trees and shrubs as fodder in silvopastoral temperate and tro-
pical production systems. Animal Production Science 58:767–777.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
37
La Pendiente Farm. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
38
Annexes
Annex 1: Methods and metrics
The TIPI-CAL model from the agri benchmark Network
was used for the simulation of the 10-year periods of SPS
introduction. TIPI-CAL is a production and accounting
model and assessment tool. It has a 10-year dynamic-re-
cursive structure and produces a prot and loss account,
a balance sheet, a cash ow for the whole farm and all
enterprises considered for each of the 10 years of simula-
tion. It further provides very detailed information on acti-
vity levels, performance and productivity of the enterpri-
ses such as herd size, lactation yield, weight of animals,
feed rations, mortality, weight gains etc.. For this project
and in contrast with the standard operating procedure,
actual case study farms instead of ‘typical’ farms were
modelled to ensure accurate and consistent information
as well as securing the link to the environmental and ani-
mal welfare related data. In some of the cases due to the
requirements of the project the analysis periods were
modied from 10 to 20 years.
Environmental data for each of the farms analyzed was
provided by CIPAV. This institution has been studying
sustainable agricultural production systems for the tro-
pical region. CIPAV has gathered historical information
and measured the eects of SPS adoption on dierent
productive and environmental variables. The information
from CIPAV was conrmed by calculations on greenhou-
se gas emissions using the add-in of the TIPI-CAL model.
Animal welfare assessments were initially developed by
animal welfare scientists at World Animal Protection in
collaboration with independent external expert Prof.
Donald Broom. An independent sustainability consultant
from Good Food Futures Ltd completed further welfare
assessments using these protocols. The method used in
the eld gave a concise and comprehensive overview of
animal welfare. Objective measures of welfare, both out-
comes-based such as body condition, and environmental
such as water provision and shade, were used. Beha-
vioural measures were adapted and simplied from glo-
bally recognised methods developed by Welfare Quality
(Botreau
et al.
2009) and Assurewel (Assurewel Project
2017), reecting good feeding, good housing, good heal-
th and good behaviour.
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
39
Annex 2: Changes in main indicators over time
Figure A2.1 Change over time in proportion (%) of farm area converted to
SPS (left) and DM (Mg) production per hectare of total farm area
Farm 1
Farm 2
Farm 3
40
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
Farm 4
Farm 5
Farm 7
Farm 6
41
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
Farm 8
Farm 9
Farm 10
Year 0 is the year cattle are introduced
El Hatico Natural Reserve. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo M. Kohut-WAP.
42
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
100
80
60
20
40
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
50
40
30
10
20
00 1 2 43 56 7 8 9
Figure A2.3 Evolution of forage production, land productivity and protability relative to baseline values
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
43
El Hatico Natural Reserve. Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Photo M. Kohut-WAP.
44
Silvopastoral Systems and their Contribution to Improved
Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America
45
La Pendiente Farm. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
Photos Back Cover:
1. SPS with hybrid pine. Corrientes, Argentina. Photo C. Durana
2. Establecimiento El Molino. Misiones, Argentina. Photo J. Chará.
3. Camaguey Farm. Meta, Colombia. Photo A. Galindo.
4. El Volga Farm. Caquetá, Colombia. Photo J. Chará.
46
ISBN 978-92-5-131192-9
9 7
8 9 2
5 1 3 1 1 9 2 9
CA2792EN/1/05.19