restoring value to grasslands - animaltaskforce.eu
TRANSCRIPT
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
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
France
Cropland 40 t SOC/ha
Grassland 70 t SOC/ha
SOC content is higher under grassland
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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
http://www.multisward.eu
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
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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)
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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)
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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
http://www.multisward.eu
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 +++ +++ +++ - - - /+
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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)
http://www.multisward.eu
Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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)
http://www.multisward.eu
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
http://www.multisward.eu
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
http://www.multisward.eu
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
http://www.multisward.eu
Thank you