Restoring value to grasslands - animaltaskforce.eu

Seminar “Resource-use Efficiency: Implications for the Sustainability and

Competitiveness of the European Livestock Sector” (Brussels, November 7th 2012)

Restoring value to grasslands

Jean-Louis Peyraud1,2, Alain Peeters3

1 INRA Scientific direction of Agriculture, 2 Coordinator of the FP7 project – MULTISWARD 3 RHEA

http://www.multisward.eu

Eurostat (Mio ha)

50 000

52 000

54 000

56 000

58 000

60 000

62 000

64 000

66 000

(Mio ha)

-30% -15%

Evolution of the permanent grassland area

EU-6 EU-15-(BE+LU)

-10 Mio ha -7.1 Mio ha

FAOSTAT


Brussels, 7 Nov 2012

France

Cropland 40 t SOC/ha

Grassland 70 t SOC/ha

SOC content is higher under grassland



Land Use Change for European soils, - Conversion of arable land to grassland leads to an estimated increase of Soil Organic Content of 1.44 t C/ha/yr - Existing grasslands still build up SOC at a rate of 0.52 t/ha/yr - Arable lands lose SOC at a rate of -0.84 ton C/ha/yr (Vleeshouwers & Verhagen, 2002).

Dynamics of C flow under grassland and crop land

NCS (g C m-2)

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

NCS (g C m-2)

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Temporary

grassland

Permanent

grassland

source

72

100

sink

Median

(gC/m²/year)

CarboEurope, GHG-Europe project, (Klumpp , Soussana et al)

38 Eu sites during 3 to 8 years


Evapo- transpiration

Run-off

Percolation

Conifer forest

Broad-leaf forest

Water flows according to land use

SNG

Arable land

Need to be more precisely quantified in defferent contexts



Billeter et al., (2008)

Bir

d s

pecie

s

Sp

ecie

s in

vo

lve

d in

polli

nis

ation

Indiv

idual num

be

r of

in

ve

rte

bra

tes

pe

r m

²

Arachnids Ants

(earthworms)

Butterfly larva

Insect larva Slugs coleoptera

Pasture Cropland Cropland

+No till

Integration of perennial crop in rotations

increase the specific wealth and

abundance of invertebrates

(Semi-natural) grasslands contribute positively to the biodiversity

Billeter et al (2008)



Erosion (t/ha/year

EU = 1,5 t/ha/year Grassland: 0,3 t/ha/year Cropland: 3,6 t/ha/year

Permanent soil cover Dense root system

Grassland reduces the risk of soil erosion

Cerdan et al. (2010)

Multisward (delivrable 1.1)



Grassland contributes to reduce the use of pesticides

Grassland (%UAA)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% area having one or more

pesticide application

(Raison et al., 2008), Greendairy project



4.0

5.0

3.1

1.4

MJ/k

g m

ilk

Pasture/MS Beguin et al., 2008

Conventional Thomassen et al., 2008

Grazing, fert N Lovett et al., 2007

Grazing, WC Basset-Mens et al., 2008

Le Gall et al., 2009

Grassland-based systems consume

less non-renewable energy


Most significant public goods associated with EU agriculture

Arable

land

Intensive

grassland

SNG Forest

Agricultural landscapes + ++ +++ +

Farmland biodiversity +/- - + +++ - - -

Water quality - - - - - +++ +++

Water availability - ++ +++ - -/+

Climate stability / C storage - - + ++ +++

Control of GHG emissions - 0/- + +++

Air quality - + ++ +++

Resilience to flooding - - + +++ +/-

Resilience to fire +++ +++ +++ - - - /+



3

Rum Ac

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

0 25 50 75 100

65

70

75

0 25 50 75 100

% s

atu

rate

d F

A

% F

A

Grassland contributes positively to the quality of animal product

Proportion of grass in the diet

Compared with grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef is - Lower in total fat (1/4 to 1/3) - Lower in saturated fatty acids - Higher in total omega-3 - Healthier ratio of 6 to 3 FA (1.7 vs 5 to14) - Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11)

(Duckett et al., 2009)

Meat Milk

(Couvreur et al., 2006)



Grassland and legumes based systems

increase protein self-sufficiency

Reduction of the use of soybean meal (Peyraud et al. 2009 for synthesis)

– Tall legumes are good complements to maize silage MS + 5 kg alfalfa (red clover) silage = - 2 kg SBM for similar milk yield

– Milk yield is higher on WC-PRG pasture than on PRG pasture

Atmospheric N fixation vs mineral N utilisation – 180 à 200 (peas), 150 à 250 (white clover), 350 (Lucerne) kg N/ha

(Peeters, 2006; Vertès et al., 2010)

Imports of soybean meal – EU-27 net imports = 32 Mt SBM equivalent to

– 19 M ha of ‘virtual land’ (2007-8) (Witzke and Noleppa 2010)

– 25% of grassland area on CP basis (Swolfs 2011, Peeters)


0

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

BRE PdL BN AUV FC

0

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

BRE PdL BN AUV FC -1,0

-0,5

+0,0

+0,5

+1,0

+1,5

+2,0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Grass intake (kg DM cow/year)

Net income difference between grazing

and indoor feeding (€/100 kg milk)

(Van den Pol-van Dasselaar , EGF 2010) (Samson et al., 2011)

Production cost (€/L)

74 59

82 62

81 68

Grassland (% forage area)

Dairy systems based on grazing

are competitive FADN data


Opportunities

- Greening component of the CAP reform

- Social demand and political

willingness / environment

- Increase price of fossil energy

- Meat and dairy products world market

SWOT analysis of grassland vs Maize

Threats

- Reduction of agricultural support

- Reduction of the rural development policy

- Agro-fuel vs grassland

- High price of cereals

- Consumption of beef and sheep

- Accuracy of C accounting methodology

Weakness

- Management (grazing, weather conditions

at harvest)

- Relatively low productivity

- Forage quality / high animal demand

- Relative high cost for silage making

- Risk of nitrate losses under Intensively

managed temporary grassland

Strength

- Low production costs

- Positive/very positive effect on biodiversity

- Soil and water protection (N, pesticides,

permanent soil cover, C storage)

- Consumption of fossil energy

- Protein self sufficiency

- Pillar of organic farming (+ PDO products)

- Healthier and more tasty meat and dairy

products


Challenges for EU farming systems - Less fossil energy demanding and more efficient converter of resources // increase of fossil fuel prices - Environmental impact, environmental services and animal welfare / Societal acceptance of ruminant production systems: - Competitiveness and resilience / price volatility

Progress - A new integration of grassland and arable land at the farm and/or the region levels : management for maximising benefits - N fixation by legumes : yield, management of rotation, benefits for animals - The right cow for the right system - A special effort by livestock systems: less energy efficient than arable systems per kg of food produced / production of other services - Political and economical tools to facilitate transitions: Cost of public policy, implication of all the food chain actors

Challenges for research


Thank you

Restoring value to grasslands - animaltaskforce.eu

Documents

Transcript of Restoring value to grasslands - animaltaskforce.eu