Comprehensive analysis of intensive silvopastoral

Comprehensive analysis of intensive silvopastoral
systems (ISPS) in Colombia (case studies)
Ernesto Reyes Montoya
agri benchmark
Pictures from SPS taken by WAP film team
Cali, Colombia Ernesto Reyes M.
09.10.2014
Assessment conducted by four institutions
agri benchmark Network
Thünen Institute of Farm Economics
CIPAV Centre for Research on Sustainable
Agricultural Production Systems
FEDEGAN
Colombian Cattle Ranching Farmers Association
Economic studies Unit
World Animal Protection
Page 2
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Content
1. Developing the assessment
2. Methodological approach
3. Preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
Page 3
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
1. Developing the assessment
agri benchmark and
FEDEGAN evaluated
farms with the ISPS
component (2010)
• A more complex
approach was
needed
The ISPS project was
exploring for a
monitoring system for
evaluating results
(2012-2013)
• agri benchmark, CIPAV,
FEDEGAN and World
Animal Protection
explored possibilitites to
provide assessment
3 case studies
selected, adopting
intensive ISPS
(2013-14)
Page 4
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
• 2 regions
• 3 Prod. Systems
• Beef finishing
• Dual purpose
• Tropical dairy
1. Developing the assessment – Describing the regions
 550 million hectares in
Latin America (2007)
27% of area
 38 million hectares in
Colombia
Page 5
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
1. Developing the assessment – Describing the regions
La Luisa
Beef finishing
Petequi
Dual purpose
Hatico
Tropical dairy
Codazzi, Cesar
Jamundí, Valle
Cerrito, Valle
960
1.500
1.500
Palm oil - Cotton
Sugar cane
Sugar cane
Cow-calf
Beef finishing
Dual purpose
Tropical dairy
Dual purpose
Tropical dairy
Region
Regional annual
precipitation (mm)
Main regional crops
Main regional livestock
production Systems
Page 6
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Content
1. Developing the assesment
2. Methodological approach
Page 7
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
2. Methodological approach
Gathering
information
Farm
records
SPS
project
Defining
baseline
scenarios
Farm
visits
Modelling
ISPS
adoption
Historical farm
data + expert
panel
Preliminary
results
Page 8
09.10.2014
CIPAV
Research activities
Expert panels
Farmers, advisors,
researchers
External quality
check protocol
Animal and forage
Production
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Historical farm data
on SPS investments
FEDEGAN
Economic
Studies Unit
Production
systems economics
Animal
Welfare
AW expertise
Prof. Broom
Cambridge Univ.
Environment
2. Methodological approach
- Constant beef price and weaners price
- Constant milk price
1. We have been modeling ISPS
- Constant variable cost/unit
2. Using historical + research data
- Cash flow gaps were covered by bank loans
3. Validated by advisors, researchers and farmers
4. Crosschecking with regional and national studies
5. Results are verified by an external protocol of quality data
Ten years
Page 9
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Year 9
Year 8
Year 7
Year 6
Current farm situation
Year 5
Year 4
Year 2
Year 1
Baseline
Baseline
Reference situation
Year 3
Period of SPS adoption and
investments
2. Methodological approach – Challenges
a. Conventional grazing vs. SPS grazing
b. Overlapping animal production on conventional and SPS
c. Balancing: feed requirements and rations, # of animals
and forage + grass production
d. Agroforestal production (timber)
Page 10
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
SPS
Timber production
Tress
Shrubs
Grass
SPS
Tress
Shrubs
Grass
SPS
Tress
Shrubs
Grass
SPS
Tress
Shrubs
Grass
SPS
Tress
Shrubs
SPS production
Grass
2. Methodological approach – Challenges
Conventional grazing
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 10
Forage production
Animal requirements
Stocking rates
Page 11
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Number of animals
Feeding rations
Improved animal
production performance
2. Methodological approach - Challenges
3 Land use - p
2013
2014
2015
Conventional
grazing (No.
Of
0
Barbecho
0
0
Pastoreo
132
122
112
65
65
65
Zonas non-productivas
Camino y instalaciones
3
3
3
SSP Graminea (Guinea)
0
10
20
SPS adopted (No. Of has.)
SSP (Leucaena)
0
10
20
SSP Arboles ano 1
0
10
10
10
SSP Arboles ano 2
0
SSP Arboles ano 3
0
SSP Arboles ano 4
0
0
SSP Arboles ano 5
SSP Arboles ano 6
0
SSP Arboles ano 7
0
SSP Arboles ano 8
0
has.)
2016
0
92
65
3
40
40
10
10
10
2017
0
72
65
3
60
60
10
10
10
10
Timber planted (No. Of has.)
2018
0
52
65
3
80
80
10
10
10
10
10
2019
0
32
65
3
100
100
10
10
10
10
10
10
2020
0
12
65
3
120
120
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2021
0
0
57
3
140
140
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2022
0
0
57
3
140
140
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2020
0,00
18,89
0,00
0,00
59,50
53,20
2021
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
59,50
53,20
28,30
2022
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
59,50
53,20
4 Crop Yield in Fresh Matter
2013
2014
Conventional
(tons/ha)
Barbecho
Pastoreo
Zonas non-productivas
Camino y instalaciones
SSP Graminea (Guinea)
SSP (Leucaena)
SSP Arboles ano 1
SSP Arboles ano 2
SSP Arboles ano 3
SSP Arboles ano 4
SSP Arboles ano 5
SSP Arboles ano 6
SSP Arboles ano 7
SSP Arboles ano 8
Page 12
09.10.2014
0,00
18,89
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2015
0,00
0,00
18,89
18,89
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
59,50
59,50
53,20
53,20
0,00
0,00
ISPS
0,00(tons/ha) 0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
2016
0,00
18,89
0,00
0,00
59,50
53,20
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2017
0,00
18,89
0,00
0,00
59,50
53,20
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2018
2019
0,00
0,00
18,89
18,89
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
59,50
59,50
53,20
53,20
0,00
17,70
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
TIMBER (tons/ha)
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
17,70
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
28,30
17,70
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
17,70
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
2. Methodological approach – animal welfare
Measured welfare potential (resources) + welfare
outcomes
• Physical / health and behaviour
• Body condition
• Tick count
• Presence of injury/disease/lameness
• Heat stress
• Water and feed quality and availability
• Natural behaviour (forage, exercise, rest)
• Access to shade at hottest part of day
Animal welfare field
assessment protocol
Page 13
09.10.2014
• Fearfulness / ease of approach (relevant to handling)
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
2. Methodological approach – animal welfare
Record if data collected where appropriate for herd.
• Mortality rate
• Weight change per month per animal
• Milk yield per animal per day
• Use of painful treatments such as castration, tail-docking,
de-horning, disbudding, hot-iron branding
• Therapeutic or prophylactic use of antibiotics or other
antimicrobials or anti-parasitic drugs
• Mastitis and lameness
Measures from
farm records
Page 14
09.10.2014
• Calving interval and fertility, calving rate
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Content
1. Developing the assesment
2. Methodological approach
3. Preliminary results
Page 15
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
3. Preliminary results – Main changes in farm production
La Luisa
Beef finishing
Petequi
Dual purpose
Hatico
Tropical dairy
Number of has. on conventional grazing
Year 0 - baseline
132
30
135
Number of has. In SPS year 5
80
14
50
Number of has. In SPS year 10
140
14
94
Number of adult animals/year
year 0 - baseline
71*
35
230
Number of adult animals year 10
710*
58
307
Yield/animal baseline
from 180 to
450 kg beef
in 2,0 years
2.346 kg Milk
per cow/year
2.644 kg milk
per cow/year
Yield/animal year 10
from 180 to
450 kg beef
in 1,2 years
3.084 kg milk
per cow/year
3.010 kg milk
per cow/year
* Animals sold/year
Page 16
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
3. Preliminary results – Feed production and land productivity
30
7.000
Feed production (tons dry matter per ha)
Land productivity (kg meat or milk per ha)
6.000
5.000
20
4.000
15
3.000
10
2.000
5
1.000
La Luisa - Beef finishing
Page 17
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Petequi - Dual purpose
El Hatico - Tropical dairy
SPS year 9
SPS year 8
SPS year 7
SPS year 6
SPS year 5
SPS year 4
SPS year 3
SPS year 2
SPS year 1
Baseline
SPS year 9
SPS year 8
SPS year 7
SPS year 6
SPS year 5
SPS year 4
SPS year 3
SPS year 2
SPS year 1
Baseline
SPS year 9
SPS year 8
SPS year 7
SPS year 6
SPS year 5
SPS year 4
SPS year 3
SPS year 2
SPS year 1
0
Baseline
0
Kg. meat or milk / ha
Tons dry matter/ ha
25
3. Preliminary results – Cost and profit
120
700
600
Whole farm costs ('000 US$)
Whole farm costs ('000 US$)
Whole farm returns ('000 US$)
Whole farm returns ('000 US$)
Whole farm returns ('000 US$)
Whole farm costs ('000 US$)
600
100
500
Profit
Profit
Profit
500
80
400
400
60
300
300
40
200
200
La Luisa - Beef finishing
Dual purpose
ElPetequi
Hatico -- Tropical
dairy
Calculations include interest on liabilities and exclude interest on savings
Page 18
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
SPS year 9
SPS year 9
SPS year 9
SPS year 8
SPS year 8
SPS year 8
SPS year 7
SPS year 7
SPS year 7
SPS year 6
SPS year 6
SPS year 6
SPS year 5
SPS
SPS year
year 55
SPS year 4
SPS
SPS year
year 44
SPS year 3
SPS
SPS year
year 33
SPS year 2
SPS
SPS year
year 22
SPS year11
SPS
SPS year
year 1
000
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
20
100
100
3. Preliminary results – Profit – 10 years
300.000
La Luisa - Beef finishing
250.000
Petequi - Dual purpose
200.000
El Hatico - Tropical dairy
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
SPS: Investment and maintenance costs per ha (US $ / ha)
-50.000
US $ / year
Calculations include interest on liabilities and exclude interest on savings
Page 19
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Water and fences
Seeding and planting *
Advisory service
Maintenance
Total
Year 9
Year 8
Year 7
Year 6
Year 5
Year 4
Year 3
Year 2
Year 1
Baseline
-100.000
La Luisa
Beef F.
Petequi
D.Purpose
Hatico
T.Dairy
648
1.713
108
224
2.692
648
2.343
108
89
3.187
492
2.385
108
93
3.079
* incl. soil preparation, fertilisation, plant protection, irrigation (Petequi/Hatico)
3. Preliminary results – Profit + timber production
La Luisa – Beef finishing + Eucalyptus
Profit (US $/year)
Profit (excl. timber returns - Us $/year)
350.000
300.000
250.000
Timber
200.000
150.000
100.000
50.000
0
Baseline Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
-50.000
-100.000
Calculations include interest on liabilities and exclude interest on savings
Page 20
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18
3. Preliminary results – Animal welfare
Farm
El
Hatico,
Cauca
valley
Feeding
Breed
Environment
Behaviour
Health
Good quality, green forage eg
Leucaena
Clean water available ad
libitum.
Max distance to water: 150m
Breed suited to local
environment – Lucerna (an
indigenous breed)
Animals were selected for
short hair, good walking ability,
compact size and good lifetime
yield.
Good space in paddocks
Trees and shrubs - shade for
all animals at all times of the
day
Dry, comfortable areas for
lying
Bright, alert and responsive
Body condition ranged from 3-4
(average 3.5)
Healthy and not lame
No signs of heat stress
80% had small population of
ticks
Petequi,
Cauca
valley
Good quality, green forage eg
Leucaena
Clean water available ad
libitum.
Max distance to water: 150m
Animals suited to the local
environment – dairy cross
breed
Some Holstein genetics less
suited to the high temperature
Good space in paddocks
Trees and shrubs provided
sufficient shade for all
animals at all times of the
day
Dry, comfortable areas for
lying
La
Luisa,
Cesar
Valley
Good quality, green forage eg
Leucaena
Clean water available ad
libitum.
Max distance to water: 250m
Animals were suited to the
local environment – beef cattle
cross
Good space in paddocks
Trees, shrubs provided
sufficient shade for all
animals at all times of the
day.
Dry, comfortable areas for
lying
Control
farm,
Cesar
valley
Medium quality forage to meet
most but not all nutritional
needs
Water ad libitum but not clean
or fresh
Animals suited to local
environment
Good space in paddock
Few trees or other shade
provision
Dry, comfortable lying areas.
Freedom of movement
Could exhibit natural behaviour:
grazing, walking, lying,
ruminating, positively interact
with other animals Animals could
choose their environment
Animals were calm,, no fearful
response.
Flight zone: 0-2 metres
Freedom of movement
Could exhibit natural behaviour:
grazing, walking, lying,
ruminating, positively interact
with other animals Animals could
choose their environment
Animals were calm,, no fearful
response
Flight zone: 0-3 metres
Freedom of movement
Could exhibit natural behaviour
Positive interactions with other
animals
Opportunity to choose natural
environment
Calm, no fearful response. Flight
zone: 0-2 metres
Freedom of movement and
could exhibit natural behaviour
including grazing, walking, lying,
ruminating, positively interact
with other animals Limited
opportunity to choose natural
environment (i.e. shade)
Fearful – flight zone 8 metres
Page 21
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Bright, alert and responsive
Body condition 3-4 (average 3.5)
Healthy and not lame
Small no. animals with slight
signs of heat stress at hottest
time of the day
50% had moderate tick
infestation.
Bright, alert and responsive
Body condition 3-4 (average 3.5)
Healthy and not lame
No signs of heat stress
V low presence of flies, ticks
Bright, alert and responsive
Body condition 2-2.5 (average
2.5)
Very low presence of flies.
3. Preliminary results – Environmental
a.
b.
c.
CO2 Emissions are being calculated (Enteric
fermentation, manure and feed).
Preliminary results under revision (applying
regional coeficients).
Carbon sequestration not yet reflected on
the study. Carbon seq. Scenarios will be
applied.
Organic Matter in Soil (T C Ha-1)
iSPS
127
Bio-diversity
Water use (animal requirements) is being
Bird richness
calculated. Preliminar results under revision
d.
Soil quality (organic matter)
e.
Biodiversity
Page 22
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Control
110
Dung Beetle
Ant richness
iSPS
45
8
123
IP
28
5
55
Content
1. Developing the assesment
2. Methodological approach
3. Preliminary results
4. Conclusions and next steps
Page 23
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
4. Preliminary conclusions
1. Results provide evidence for the ability of SPS to create ‘triple-win’ solutions:
(a) Productivity and profitability gains (b) Environmental improvement © Animal welfare benefits
2. The overall uptake of SPS has been limited by the level of investments, access to
capital, and investment risk.
3. As intensive SPS are management-intensive, capacity building (advisory services)
is a key component of successful delivery.
4. Targeted investment early in establishment of SPS, and an effective capacity
building program, can provide increased potential for success.
5. The benefits from such investment are clear and this is an area where
international and local policy mechanisms, donors and governments can play a
crucial role
Page 24
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
4. Next steps
1. In order to better define critical periods and main cash flow needs, a detailed
analysis of level of investment is required, as well as for risk evaluation.
2. At local level, will be necessary to increase coverage of case studies (SPS
Colombian project), where regional and production system differences and
farmers reactions, can be measured and illustrated when adopting SPS.
3. It will be also essential to analyze the impact of financial and incentive measures,
when adopting SPS (e.g. SPS Colombian projects).
4. At regional level (L. America), would also be important to increase coverage of
analysis in order to compare other approaches of SPS (e.g. timber + livestock).
Page 25
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Thanks...
Ernesto Reyes – agri benchmark
Livestock Systems Manager
ernesto.reyes@telefónica.net
agri benchmark Network
Thünen Institute of Farm Economics
CIPAV Centre for Research on Sustainable
Agricultural Production Systems
FEDEGAN
Colombian Cattle Ranching Farmers Association
Economic studies Unit
World Animal Protection
Pictures have been taking during the field visits/CIPAV’s file
Page 26
09.10.2014
Ernesto Reyes M.
Comprehensive analysis of SPS
Farm workers
Fernando Uribe – CIPAV
Luis Solarte – CIPAV
Harold Niño – Advisor La Luisa
Leonardo Manzano – Advisor La Luisa
Molina’s family – El Hatico
Lola Izquierdo – agri benchmark