Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Herds and Treatments
2.2.1. Silvopastoral Systems (SPS)
2.2.2. Open Pastures Systems (OPS)
2.2.3. Additional Information
2.3. Data Collection
2.3.1. Welfare Indicator Assessment
2.3.2. Body Weight
2.4. Records of Environmental Temperature and Humidity
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Welfare Indicator Assessment
3.2. Live Body Weight
Generalized Mixed-Effect Model (GLMM)
3.3. Records of Environmental Temperature and Humidity
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Murgueitio, E.; Calle, Z.; Uribe, F.; Calle, A.; Solorio, B. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1654–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, R.O.; Botero, R. Nitrogen fixing trees for animal production on acid soils. In Nitrogen Fixing Trees for Acid Soils—A Field Manual; Powell, M.H., Ed.; Winrock International: Morrilton, AR, USA, 1996; pp. 31–39. [Google Scholar]
- Peri, P.L.; Dube, F.; Varella, A.C. Silvopastoral systems in the subtropical and temperature zones of South America: An overview. In Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America; Peri, P., Dube, F., Varella, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Broom, D.M. Components of sustainable animal production and the use of silvopastoral systems. R. Bras. Zootec. 2017, 46, 683–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chará, J.; Reyes, E.; Peri, P.; Otte, J.; Arce, E.; Schneider, F. Silvopastoral Systems and Their Contribution to Improved Resource Use and Sustainable Development Goals: Evidence from Latin America; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
- Nuberg, I.; George, B.; Reid, R. Agroforestry for Natural Resource Management; CSIRO Publising: Clayton, Australia, 2009; p. 341. [Google Scholar]
- Bobadilla, P.E.; Huertas, S.M.; Akkermans, E.; Bueno, H.; Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. Silvopastoral system in a subtropical region: A tool to improve beef cattle welfare. In Proceedings of the UFAW International Animal Welfare Science Symposium, Bruges, Belgium, 3–4 July 2019; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Mancera, K.; Zarza, H.; López de Buen, L.; Carrasco García, A.; Montiel Palacios, F.; Galindo, F. Integrating links between tree coverage and cattle welfare in silvopastoral systems evaluation. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ocampo, A.; Cardozo, A.; Tarazona, A.; Ceballos, M.; Murgueitio, E. La investigación participativa en bienestar y comportamiento animal en el trópico de América: Oportunidades para nuevo conocimiento aplicado/Participatory research on animal welfare and behavior in the tropics of America: Opportunities for new applied knowledge. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2011, 24, 332–346. [Google Scholar]
- Bussoni, A.; Alvarez, J.; Cubbage, F.; Ferreira, G.; Picasso, V. Diverse strategies for integration of forestry and livestock production. Agrofor. Syst. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosengurtt, B. Tablas de comportamiento de las especies de plantas de campos naturales en el Uruguay/Tables of behavior of plant species from natural fields in Uruguay. Dirección General de Extensión Universitaria, División Publicaciones y Ediciones. 1979. Available online: https://books.google.nl/books/about/Tablas_de_comportamiento_de_las_especies.html?id=zMxgAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y) (accessed on 21 January 2021).
- Fedrigo, J.K.; Benítez, V.; Santa Cruz, R.; Posse, J.; Santiago, R.; Hernández, J.; Mantero, C.; Morales, V.; Silveira, E.; Viñoles, C. Opportunities and challenges for the silvopastoral systems in Uruguay. Veterinaria 2018, 54, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- INIAGRAS 2020. Available online: http://www.inia.uy/gras/Clima/Banco-datos-agroclimatico (accessed on 11 January 2021).
- West, J.W. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 2131–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eerdenburg, F.; Plekkenpol, S. Heat stress in Dutch dairy cattle during summer. In Proceedings of the ISAH 2005, Warsaw, Poland, 4–8 September 2005; Volume 1, pp. 229–232. [Google Scholar]
- Thorn, E. The discomfort index. Weatherwise 1959, 12, 57–59. [Google Scholar]
- Murgueitio, E.; Barahona, R.; Chará, J.D.; Flores, M.X.; Mauricio, R.M.; Molina, J.J. The intensive silvopastoral systems in Latin America sustainable alternative to face climatic change in animal husbandry. Cuba. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 49, 541–554. [Google Scholar]
- Chará, J.; Rivera, J.E.; Barahona, R.; Murgueitio, E.; Deblitz, C.; Reyes, E.; Mauricio, R.; Molina, J.; Flores, M.; Zuluaga, A. Intensive silvopastoral systems: Economics and contribution to climate change mitigation and public policies. In Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty; Montagnini, F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Cubbage, F.; Balmelli, G.; Bussoni, A.; Noellemeyer, E.; Pachas, A.N.; Fassola, H.; Colcombet, L.; Rossner, B.; Frey, G.; Dube, F.; et al. Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, S.C.; Read, J. Comparison of temperate and tropical rainforest tree species: Photosynthetic responses to growth temperature. Oecologia 2002, 133, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silveira, A.; Ferrão, J.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; Pinto-Correia, T.; Guimarães, M.; Schmidt, L. The sustainability of agricultural intensification in the early 21st century: Insights from the olive oil production in Alentejo (Southern Portugal) In Changing Societies: Legacies and Challenges; Imprensa de Ciências Sociais: Lisbon, Portugal, 2018; pp. 247–261. [Google Scholar]
- Blokhuis, H.J. Welfare Quality Assessment Protocol for Cattle. 2009. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/233467 (accessed on 11 January 2021).
- Huertas, S.M.; Paranhos da Costa, M.; Manteca, X.; Galindo, F.; Morales, M. An overview of the application of the animal welfare assessment system in Latin America. In An Overview of the Development of the Welfare Quality® Project Assessment Systems; Report No 12; Keeling, L., Ed.; Welfare Quality Network: Uppsala, Sweden, 2009; pp. 70–89. ISBN 1-902647-82-3. [Google Scholar]
- Berman, A. Estimates of heat stress relief needs for Holstein dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 83, 1377–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kendall, P.E.; Nielsen, P.P.; Webster, J.R.; Verkerk, G.A.; Littlejohn, R.P.; Matthews, L.R. The effects of providing shade to lactating dairy cows in a temperate climate. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 14–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermunt, J.J.; Tranter, B.P. Heat stress in dairy cattle: A review, and Some of the Potential Risks Associated with the Nutritional Management of This Condition. 2011. Available online: http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/15828/1/15828_Vermunt_and_Tranter_2011.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2021).
- Davis, S.; Mader, T. Adjustments for Wind speed and Solar Radiation to the Temperature-Humidity Index. Nebraska Beef Report; University of Nebraska Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2003; pp. 49–51. [Google Scholar]
- Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Elphick, C.S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2010, 1, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolker, B.M.; Brooks, M.E.; Clark, C.J.; Geange, S.W.; Poulsen, J.R.; Stevens, M.H.H.; White, J.S.S. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zuur, A.; Ieno, E.N.; Walker, N.; Saveliev, A.A.; Smith, G.M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Nakagawa, S.; Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D.; R Core Team. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models; R Package Version 3.1-144; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bartón, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. 2018. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (accessed on 11 January 2021).
- Fraser, D.; Duncan, I.; Edwards, S.; Grandin, T.; Gregory, N.; Guyonnet, V.; Hemsworth, P.; Huertas, S.; Huzzey, J.; Mellor, D.; et al. General principles for the welfare of animals in production systems: The underlying science and its application. Vet. J. 2013, 198, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Broom, D.M.; Galindo, F.A.; Murgueitio, E. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 2013, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bouissou, A.; Boissy, A.; Le Neindre, P.; Veissier, I. The social behaviour of cattle. In Social Behavior in Farm Animals; Keeling, L., Gonyou, H., Eds.; CABI: Wallinford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossner, M.V.; Aguilar, N.M.; Koscinczuk, P. Bienestar animal aplicado a la producción bovina. Rev. Vet. 2010, 21, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Campo, M.; Brito, G.; Montossi, F.; Soares de Lima, J.M.; San Julián, R. Animal welfare and meat quality: The perspective of Uruguay, a “small” exporter country. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Améndola, L.; Solorio, F.J.; González-Rebeles, C.; Galindo, F. Behavioural indicators of cattle welfare in silvopastoral systems in the tropics of México. In Proceedings of the 47th Congress of International Society of Apply Ethology, Florianópolis, Brazil, 2–6 July 2013; p. 150. [Google Scholar]
- Waterhouse, A. Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions—A European perspective. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 49, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broom, D.M. Sustainability and the role of animal welfare. In Proceedings of the 33rd World Veterinary Congress, Incheon, Korea, 27–31 August 2017; pp. 632–635. [Google Scholar]
- Brazeiro, A.; Cravino, A.; Fernández, P.; Haretche, F. Afforestation in Uruguayan grasslands: Effects on bird and mammal diversity at stand and landscape scales. Ecosistemas 2018, 27, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, R. Trees in grazing systems. In Agroforestry for Natural Resource Management; Nuberg, I., George, B., Reid, R., Eds.; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2009; pp. 219–235. [Google Scholar]
- Campos Paciullo, D.S.; Tavares de Castro, C.R.; de Miranda Gomide, C.A.; Martins Mauricio, R.; Ávila Pires, M.F.; Dias Müller, M.; Ferreira Xavier, D. Performance of dairy heifers in a silvopastoral system. Livest. Sci. 2011, 141, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lowman, B.G.; Scott, N.A.; Somerville, S.M. Condition Scoring Beef Cattle. Bulletin No. 6; East of Scotland College of Agriculture: Aberdeen, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Simeone, A. ¿Ganadería y Forestación: Competitividad o Complementariedad? Sitio Argentino de Producción Animal/Livestock and Forestry: Competitiveness or Complementarity? Argentine Animal Production Site. 2012. Available online: http://www.produccionanimal.com.ar/produccion_y_manejo_pasturas/manejo%20silvopastoril/143-Ganaderia_y_forestacion.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2021).
- Beretta, V.; Simeone, A.; Bentancur, O. Manejo de la sombra asociado a la restricción del pastoreo: Efecto sobre el comportamiento y performance estival de vacunos/Shade management associated with grazing restriction: Effect on the behavior and summer performance of cattle. Agrociencia 2013, 17, 131–140. [Google Scholar]
- Manríquez-Mendoza, L.; López-Ortiz, S.; Olguín Palacios, C.; Pérez-Hernández, P.; Díaz-Rivera, P.; López-Tecpoyotl, Z. Productivity of a silvopastoral system under intensive mixed species grazing by cattle and sheep. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2011, 13, 573–584. [Google Scholar]
- Nabinger, C.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; Cassiano Pinto, E.; Mezzalira, J.C.; Martins, D.; Brambilla, M.; Boggiano, P. Ecosystems services from natural grasslands: It’s possible to enhance them with more productivity? Asoc. Latinoam. Prod. Anim. 2011, 19, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Bueno, H.; Bobadilla, P.; Huertas, S. Comparative study of winter floristic composition of sisvopastoral system and natural pasture in a central zone of Uruguay. In Proceedings of the IX Congreso Internacional de Sistemas Silvopastoriles, Manizales, Colombia, 6–8 September 2017; pp. 49–53, ISBN 978 958 9386 78 1. [Google Scholar]
- Gomes da Silva, R.; Morais, D.; Guilhermino, M. Evaluation of thermal stress indexes for dairy cows in tropical regions. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2007, 36, 1192–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García Pinillos, R.; Appleby, M.C.; Scott-Park, F.; Smith, C.; Velarde, A. One Welfare—A platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2015, 177, 629–630. [Google Scholar]
Characteristics of SPS | Type |
---|---|
Eucalyptus spp. | globulus |
Average age of the trees (years old) | 6 |
Design of plantation | 2 × 2 |
Canopy level | Several layers, new shoots and harvest remains |
Average Density (tree/ha) | 830 |
Average DBH * (cm) | 11.4 |
Average height (m) | 11.7 |
Total volume (m3/ha) | 60.5 |
Overall status | Acceptable health status |
Animal Welfare Indicator | Welfare Criterion | Measures |
---|---|---|
Good Feeding | Absence of prolonged hunger | Body condition score |
Good health | Absence of injuries | Lameness, integument alterations |
Absence of disease | Coughing, nasal discharge, ocular discharge, hampered respiration, diarrhoea, bloated rumen, mortality | |
Appropriate behavior | Expression of social behaviors | Agonistic behaviors, cohesive behaviors |
Fixed Effects | ||
Variable | Estimated weight a | CI b |
systemOP: visit_1 | 290.5 | (274.4; 306.5) |
systemSPS: visit_1 | 300.1 | (284.4; 315.7) |
visit_2 | 36.9 | (31.2; 42.6) |
visit_3 | 55.9 | (48.8; 62.9) |
visit_4 | 65.8 | (58.1; 73.5) |
visit_5 | 72.9 | (64.8; 81.1) |
visit_6 | 70.1 | (61.4; 78.7) |
visit_7 | 73.9 | (63.8; 84.0) |
visit_8 | 112.1 | (99.0; 125.1) |
Random Effects | ||
Variable | Estimated SD | |
herd/id c | 41.1 (Intercept); 33.2 (Residual) | |
Goodness of fit | ||
R2m d | 15% | |
R2c e | 79% |
Season | Daily Minimum | Daily Maximum | Daily Average | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AT | RH | THI | AT | RH | THI | AT | RH | THI | |
summer | 10 | 65 | 51.6 | 35 | 98 | 94.9 | 23.3 | 81 | 72.5 |
fall | −1 | 74 | 34.2 | 32 | 98 | 89.6 | 17.3 | 88.6 | 63 |
winter | 0 | 71 | 36.2 | 20 | 98 | 68.1 | 10.7 | 87.6 | 51.9 |
spring | 6 | 57 | 46.5 | 34 | 96 | 92.8 | 18.4 | 76.5 | 64.4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huertas, S.M.; Bobadilla, P.E.; Alcántara, I.; Akkermans, E.; van Eerdenburg, F.J.C.M. Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle. Animals 2021, 11, 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040992
Huertas SM, Bobadilla PE, Alcántara I, Akkermans E, van Eerdenburg FJCM. Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle. Animals. 2021; 11(4):992. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040992
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuertas, Stella Maris, Pablo Ernesto Bobadilla, Ignacio Alcántara, Emilie Akkermans, and Frank J. C. M. van Eerdenburg. 2021. "Benefits of Silvopastoral Systems for Keeping Beef Cattle" Animals 11, no. 4: 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11040992