Diversification of Ente

by Dr. Larry D. Butler

Enterprise Diversification Specialist

NRCS, Grazing Lands Technology Institute
Fort Worth, Texas

Cash income from grazing lands has
traditionally beer from the sale of live-
stock and livestock products. The owners
of grazing lands are breaking with tradi-
tions and are considering the various
opportunities for increasing profits and
diversifying their enterprises on their
grazing lands with alternative and supple-
mental enterprises and nontraditional uses.

The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Grazing Lands
Technology Institute (GLTI) is responsi-
ble for acquiring, developing, adapting,
and transferring enterprise technology to
the NRCS for field office use with land
owners and managers. Dr. Larry D. Butler
is the GLTI enterprise diversification spe-
cialist who devotes full-time to this
responsibility.

The number and kind of enterprises
for any land unit depends upon the
resources available. Each land unit must
be assessed to recognize its potential and
enterprises must be tailored to the individ-
ual grazing land operation. The selection
of an additional enterprise or significant
change to an existing enterprise should be
done following an inventory of existing
conditions and resources and after an
evaluation of the effects the enterprise
will have on the resources and the total
grazing land operation.

Grazing land owners have numerous
reasons to diversify their enterprises,
among them are:

* Current enterprise is not making an
acceptable profit

* Desire to increase income

* Financial risk can be reduced

* Increase or better distribute cash flow

* Utilize available resources: such as
labor, facilities, and natural resources

* Change operations because of
regulations

* Take advantage of a consumer desire
or need

¢ Enable the next generation of family
members to remain on the farm or
ranch

* Personal preference to operate a
different business

Grazing lands enterprises are devel-

There are several alternative opportunities
for increasing profits on pasture land, in
addition to grazing cattle.

oped around existing farm and ranch
resources and must be managed to main-
tain and/or improve the resources upon
which they depend. A few enterprise
examples are: working ranch vacations;
hunting; photo safaris; bird watching; bed
& breakfast inns; fishing; silvopastoral
systems and other agroforestry products;
camping; and historic tours.

The Grazing Lands Technology
Institute will be issuing a newsletter about

rprises on Grazing Lands

eles gal ast

Sa ee
Recreational opportunities can be

oped to supplement existing farm and ranch
resources,

grazing land enterprises. If you would
like to receive the newsletter or if you
have information about a unique grazing
land enterprise or other information that
you would like to share, please contact:
Dr. Larry D. Butler, Enterprise
Diversification Specialist, Grazing Lands
Technology Institute, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, PO Box 6567, Fort
Worth, Texas 76115. E-mail address:
Ibutler @ftw.nres.usda.gov

Science Confirms Soil Protection Techniques

For years publications and workshops sponsored by the National Arbor Day
foundation have warned about soil compaction around trees and offered sugges-
tions about how to prevent it. The problem is particularly important when vehicles
are used near trees during construction. When the soil is wet, even parking cars on
a lawn near trees was believed to cause compaction. Now the concept has been
proven by a controlled scientific study at Davis, California, and reported in the
Journal of Arboriculture. The bulk density of soil, a measurement that indicates the
porosity of the soil or its absence, was determined at 35 plots on a fallow field.
Each plot was then covered with a protective layer of materials such as wood chips,
gravel, or plywood. Next, a heavy piece of construction equipment was driven over
all plots, including an unprotected control plot. Findings showed what tree experts
have said for years. A six-inch layer of wood chips or other material protected the
soil from compaction. A sheet of plywood by itself did little to help, and soil not
protected at all was significantly compacted to at least four to five inches in depth.
Compacted soil was detected to over 14 inches in depth, but the damage was not as
severe, Since most tree roots are found in the top 12 to 18 inches of soil, protective
layers around trees are clearly important for helping roots thrive in a healthy envi-
ronment that includes pores for the passage of oxygen and moisture.

Source: Adapted from Arbor Day, March/April, 1995

Inside Agroforestry 5



Nebraska

Feedlot is “Paradise” for Nebraska Cattle

The cattle at “Paradise Feeders” near Stanton, Nebraska really
do have it made, hence the name “Paradise” — and so does co-
owner, Tom Feller.

In 1992 Feller was looking to build another feedyard when a
parcel of land came up for sale which had already-established
rows of trees planted on it. The trees were originally planted in
the 1930’s or 1940’s to keep the sandy soils near the Elkhorn
River valley, from blowing. Five one-row, red cedar windbreaks
each 1/2 mile long, line the property that Feller purchased. And,
it was here that Feller built “paradise.”

Coupling his own experience with advice from local residents
who had windbreaks of similar age, size, and type about snow
drift and air movement, Feller constructed 10, eight to 10 acre
pens that each hold about 300 cattle in between the windbreaks.
Each pen is about 100 feet from the trees on both sides.

Feller contends that this setup is almost like a building. He
says, “I have the benefits of an outdoor feeding area but the envi-
ronment of a building.” The cattle don’t get cold when the cold
northwesterly winds that inevitably hit Nebraska each winter
blow. So he never has to worry about them, even in the worst of
blizzards. Furthermore, because of his pre-planning, Feller has
never had a problem with snow drifting into the lots. He says,
“sometimes a little snow will get onto the alleys, but nowadays
with payloaders it has never presented a problem for us to get the
cattle fed.

Not only are the windbreaks a benefit to the cattle’s-environ-
ment but they help maintain, and sometimes increase, weight
gain. Feller says “If we have a bad winter with lots of wind, I still
get about three pounds of gain per day, whereas a normal feedlot
without trees might only get 2.8 pounds of gain per day. And,
that .2 difference on 100 days is 20 pounds. When you multiply
20 pounds by $.80 per pound that equals about $16.00 extra prof-
it per head. I

Now, you may be wondering what hap-
pens to the cattle during the summer months
when there is little air movement in the pens
because of the windbreaks. Well, the cattle
move out and corn moves in! This year
Feller says that he is going to have “one
heck of a corn crop.” He’s heard that his
trees equal half of the value of a pivot. This
is because windbreaks reduce evaporation
losses and improve a crops’ water-use effi-
ciency, increasing crop yields. The wind-
breaks also reduce damage to seedlings
from wind-blown soil. Furthermore, the
corn grows in a place that’s rich in nutrients
from the manure that the cattle have left
behind. This is a definite plus in a place so
sandy that it’s normally hard to grow corn.

Feller believes that another benefit of the
windbreaks is that as spring rolls around

there is no ground cover and with sandy soils you would normal-
ly have to worry about blowing sand. But, because of the trees
this isn’t a problem either.

Of course, as with any operation there are a few problems,
especially when you don’t use a particular area full time. Number
one is that Feller doesn’t have all the equipment and permanancy
of a normal feedlot setup. The other is that this year Feller will
have to haul manure because of the buildup in some areas he will
have. But, since this feedlot is located in a sandy-soil area where
it’s hard to grow corn, he has a lot of neighbors who are more
than willing to take the extra manure.

Feller says, “The two systems really work well together. If I
could find another set-up like this I would do it again.” He is a
believer in trees as he has already planted over 3,000 trees at
another feedlot.
He says that
because of the
work involved to
get the trees
started some of
his hired men
think he’s crazy,
but we know
better!

Thank you
Tom for your
foresight and
Planning. It's
landowners like
you who serve as
leaders for
others.

mA a
Located near the Elkhorn River valley in

Nebraska, “Paradise Feeders” is truly paradise
for feedlot cattle.

Five, one-row windbreaks line Fellers property, making room for 10 lots that each hold about
300 cattle. In the summer, corn takes the place of cattle.

4 Inside Agroforestry


(Answer from page 1) - -

Agroforesters, from the National
Agroforestry Center, environmental engi-
neers from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and scientists from
the Agricultural Research Service studied
the application of poultry litter application
under four different land management
senarios. One senario was the application
of the litter on fescue pasture.Two sil-
vopasture agroforestry senarios were eval-
uated: one had a fescue understory with
an overstory of loblolly pine managed to
maintain the canopy at 10 to 25%, and the
other had an understory of fescue with an
overstory of loblolly pine at 25 to 45%.
The fourth senario was a loblolly pine for-
est plantation. Poultry manure application
rates selected for analysis were 0, 5, 10,
15 and 20 tons per acre respectively. They
used the Environmental Policy Integrated
Climate (EPIC) model and the Almanac
program to analyze the fate of the nutri-
ents from the four scenarios and the
potential water quality impacts. The
analysis was done for a thirty year period.

In order for an agroforestry system to
be accepted it must provide improved eco-
nomics, improved environmental benefits,
or improved management opportunities
over existing alternatives. The trees are
therefore managed to maximize the pro-
duction of the grass. The added tree bio-
mass production increases the potential
demand and utilization of nutrients. Also
in the agroforestry system the root sys-
tems of the grass and trees provide two
tiers with the grass roots being shallower
than the tree roots. The grass and tree
roots intercept the nutrients after they
enter the soil profile and the deeper tree
roots intercept any nutrients that percolate
below the grass roots. In theory this will
provide an increased residence time of the
nutrients in the plant root zone and
improved nutrient utilization by the
plants. The agroforestry systems analyzed
are called alley cropping because the trees
are established in wide spaced rows or
alleys to allow for ease in application of
poultry litter similar to the application on
pasture. The application and even distrib-
ution of manure is a major management
obstacle in forest plantations.

The EPIC model results showed that
there was a decrease in the loss of nutri-
ents to surface and ground water when
comparing an agroforestry system with
the fescue only system.

Nitrogen movement below the root
zone increased significantly when the
application rate exceeded 10 tons per acre
per year on the fescue pasture (0%
canopy) and at an application rate of 20
tons/ac, 45.1 lbs/acre of N was moving
past the root zone with potential to pollute
the ground water. The agroforestry and
forestry alternatives never exceeded 3.8
Ibs/ac N moving past the root zone. See
Table 1.

The agroforestry senarios (10 to 25%
canopy and 25 to 45% canopy) showed
about a 25 to 30 % reduction of nitrate in
runoff water at different application rates
compared to the fescue pasture alternative
(0% canopy) and about a 10% reduction
over the forest scenario (>45% canopy).
See Table 2.

One of the implications is that an agro-

Table 1

forestry management system permits is a
higher application rate without contami-
nating water quality. Another possibility
might be to expand traditional cropland
and grassland application areas into forest
plantations by adding grass to the under-
story and managing a thinner canopy than
traditional forestry would prescribe.
These options may permit the increase in
numbers of confined animals, improve the
economics of the operation, and protect
the environment.

The rext step is full-scale application
of agroforestry systems to test the model
results. If this research validates the
model results, then management recom-
mendations for animal waste land applica-
tion can be developed.

This is one example of how trees can
add value to livestock operations.

N percolation below the root zone with various application rates

50
° 40
Ss
$ === 0% canopy
2 x0 _|- 10 to 25%
©
£ — 250 45%
5 —-— 245%
3 20
=
z
10
oO
Poultry litter application in tons/acre
Table 2

Nitrate in the runoff with various application rates

20 T
1

Nitrate runoff in Ib/acre

0% canopy
10 to 25%
— 25 to 45%
ae 245%

Poultry litter application In tons/acre

6 Inside Agroforestry


and spread onto fields for fertilizer.

Are Trees the Answer? -

by Jim Robinson, Agroforester
National Agroforestry Center
Fort Worth, Texas

When old McDonald had a farm, eeeei-
iiii, eeeeiiiii-o. He had a few chickens
here, some pigs over there and a few
good old cows too. The pastures were
green, the air was clear and the water was
clean. While this idyllic picture may be a
romantic myth it is true that small farms
of the past typically did not confine live-
stock in large numbers, so the waste pro-
duced could be easily utilized on the farm
acreage.

To take advantage of economies of
scale, efficient use of management, labor
and marketing, large confinement sys-
tems are becoming the standard in today’s
agriculture. Large operations such as live-
stock feedlots confining 10,000 or more
beef animals, confinement dairy opera-
tions with 500 animals or more, poultry
operations with 80,000 birds in confine-
ment houses, and grower pigs of 5,000
animals or more are becoming common
place in the agricultural environment.

Instead of randomly distributing their
manure on range or pasture, confinement
animals deposit all the manure at one
central spot. This creates a mountain of

Lagoons collect waste from livestock facilities like this poultry house. Waste i is then pumped

manure to be manually redistributed on
fields in a manner that the plants utilize
the nutrients without creating pollution of
our surface or ground water. For many
managers animal waste utilization is
becoming one of their primary manage-
ment concerns.

Typically animal waste has been
applied on cropland and pastureland adja-
cent to the confinement operations. As the
readily available acreage becomes fully
utilized, alternative lands are being looked
at for possible land application areas. New
systems, such as an agroforestry system,
that will allow us to safely increase load-
ing rates and nutrient utilization, need to
be looked at.

~~. (See Answer on page 6)

This Issue

Inside Agroforestry

National Agroforestry Center x6) y

Summer, 1996

Trees for Livestock

Windbreaks play an important role in
the protection of livestock, particularly

| for young animals and in areas with cold
© northerly winds during the winter and

early spring. By reducing wind velocity
and the effects of cold temperatures, live-
stock windbreaks can significantly reduce

: Stress on animals, improve their health,

and reduce feed energy requirements.
This results in better animal health, lower
animal mortality, lower feed costs, and

| increased livestock profits. Windbreaks
| can also reduce the effects of heat stress

to animals during hot, dry summer
months.

Properly placed windbreaks can pro-
vide benefits to feedlots, livestock pas-
tures, calving areas, and forage produc-
tion areas. Livestock windbreaks also
provide wildlife habitat, protect the work-
ing environment in and around the live-

| stock area, and help to screen noise and
| odors associated with livestock opera-

tions,
When planning and designing a wind-

| break, special attention needs to be given

to access, snow storage, and drainage.
Each windbreak should be designed to
meet the particular livestock operation. A
well-thought-out and properly-cared-for
windbreak protects livestock in both the
winter and summer and will provide eco-
nomic benefits to the landowner over the
long term. The time spent on layout, site
preparation, weed control, and replanting
is paid back many times throughout the
life of a windbreak.

(See Livestock on page 2)

WB “Working Trees” for Livestock...page 2

I Development of Silvopastoral Systems...page 3

I “Paradise” for Nebraska Cattle...page 4

@ Diversification of Grazing Lands...page 5


(Sitvopastoral from page 3) —

lowed by a broadcast fertilizer application
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium at
rates recommended for normal field con-
ditions.

Perennial forage crops, which are well
adapted for a timber pasture forage sys-
tem, can be established at planting rates
recommended for open fields. In most
cases, understory burning and fertilizer
application provide adequate seedbed
preparation, which minimizes soil erosion
potential. Less adaptive forage crops may
require more intense establishment proce-
dures. Forage utilization should be
delayed for at least one growing season to
permit stand establishment.

When planting conifers in pastures or
on abandoned crop land, consideration
should be given to planting rates, spacing
between seedlings, insect protection, and
herbaceous vegetation control during the
first two growing seasons. Tree planting
rates should range between 300 and 450
trees/acre with trees spaced 6 feet apart in
rows 16 or 24 feet apart. These planting
rates and spacing combinations will yield
growing stock for thinning between ages
10 and 15 and will provide easy access
for farm and logging equipment, thus
minimizing tree and forage crop damage.
Prior to and after thinning, lower limb
pruning should be performed to maintain
adequate light for forage production and
to stimulate growth of knot-free lumber.
Since herbaceous weeds and insects can
limit early plantation growth and develop-
ment, appropriate control measures
should be applied during the first and sec-
ond growing seasons. If control measures
are properly applied, forage management
and utilization will be possible during the
second or third growing season.

Silvopastoral land use management
systems are capable of producing mar-
ketable products while maintaining long-
term land productivity. They encourage
enterprise diversification by combining
agricultural commodities having compati-
ble management requirements. Since
management costs are distributed among
commodities, the potential exists to lower
production costs and to enhance market-
ing flexibility for each commodity in the
management system. These integrated
production systems can achieve profitable
utilization of marginally productive agri-
cultural land.

(Livestock from page 2)

air temperatures below 35 degrees F. The
amount of decline is dependent on animal
health, coat condition, and feed intake.
Under windy conditions further declines
in production or increased feed require-
ments can be expected, due to lower
windchill temperatures.

A windbreak significantly reduces
windchill effects to livestock. Research
indicates that merely by providing ade-
quate wind protection, the direct effects of
cold can be cut by more than half. A
properly designed livestock windbreak
can reduce wind velocity as much as 70
percent, with resulting reductions in
windchill effects.

There are two major types of wind-
break designs generally used for a live-
stock confinement area; the traditional
multi-row design and a newer twin-row,
high-density design. Which design you
choose depends on the area available for
planting, the area to be protected, and
what the windbreak is supposed to

' accomplish.

Developing a livestock windbreak for
maximum protection requires that animal
enclosures be located in the
well-protected downwind
zone, while at the same
time avoiding snowdrift
and drainage problems.
They should be located
perpendicular to the pre-
vailing winter winds. For
example, in the Upper
Midwest and Northern
Great Plains, windbreaks
should be located on the
north and west. In some sit-
uations, an additional
windbreak on the south
side will provide protection
from snow storms in late
winter and early spring. Be
careful that windbreaks
located on the south side
do not block summer
breezes, increasing heat
stress. In southern loca-
tions, windbreaks on the
south should be avoided.

Proper drainage for
melting snow must be pro-
vided in order to reduce the
level of mud in feedlot
areas. Likewise, runoff

continuously

its long term
function and the

and shrubs.

problems.

Orient windbreaks
perpendicular to
direction of
prevailing winter
winds.

Livestock must be
excluded from the
windbreak to insure

health and vigor of
its individual trees

from the feedlot should be directed away

from the trees since the high nitrate levels
of the runoff will damage the windbreak.

The length, height, and density of a
windbreak determine the area that is pro-
tected. In general, the protection provided
by a moderately dense windbreak (60 to
80 percent density) will extend downwind
a distance of 15H, where H equals the
height of the windbreak.

A windbreak designed to protect live-
stock must take into account a number of
different factors and should be designed
to meet the specific needs of the site, the
farm operation, and the landowner’ s pref-
erences. The complexity increases when
additional benefits or objectives are
involved. For additional guidance in
designing livestock windbreaks refer to
your local NRCS field office technical
guide or the Center’s Agroforestry Note -
2 “Outdoor Living Barn: A Specialized
Windbreak.”

Adapted from “Conservation Trees For Your Farm,
Family, & Future,” National Arbor Day Foundation

and “Windbreaks for Livestock Operations,”
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension

The windbreak should be
located far enough upwind
{from livestock to keep
drifted snow away from
the feedlot or enclosure.

the For best protection,

plant three or more
rows of trees and

For greatest wind
protection, the area
to be protected
should be located

within a downwind
distance of 2 to 5
times the expected
20-year height of
the tallest
windbreak row.

‘A smaller row of auxiliary
windbreak protection
placed in the drift-ree

area closer to the livestock
can provide additional
protection during severe
weather conditions.

Maximum protection from a livestock windbreak requires ani-
mal enclosures be located in the well-protected downwind
zone, while at the same time avoiding snowdrift and drainage

Inside Agroforestry 7


Message From the Manager

How can trees add value to grazing systems? That’s a key
question we are addressing as we develop concepts for agro-
forestry in the United States. The situation is basically the
same as for cropping systems: strategically adding trees to the
system can help maintain the health of the system, increase
productivity, and provide other desired benefits. Agroforestry
accomplishes this through the establishment of integrated
tree/livestock systems and the application of “working tree”
practices.

“Silvopastoral systems” combine trees with forage and
livestock in integrated systems that utilize space, growing sea-
son, and growth factors more efficiently. For example, many
cool season grasses and legumes are just as productive in par-
tial shade as they are in full sun, and in some cases the forage
is higher quality than that produced in full sun. The trees also
reduce livestock stress from heat and cold. The result is
increased, diversified, and stable production, while maintaining
environmental protection.

Working tree practices are not integrated systems, but help
to solve problems, save money, or make life easier in grazing
systems. For example, “outdoor living barns” are tree plantings
to provide shelter for livestock during severe weather and vul-
nerable times such as calving. “Living snowfences” keep drift-
ing snow off roads, or capture snow to fill livestock ponds.
“Livestock habitat plantings” or riparian zone restoration pro-

A commentary on the status of agroforestry
as reported by Program Manager, Bill Rietveld

“Working Trees” for Livestock

jects provide habitat for wildlife and provide buffer zones to
filter runoff water from storms.

Not all tree/livestock systems are agroforestry. We are
often asked whether forest grazing is agroforestry. The answer
is no if it is passive grazing; yes if it meets the following crite-
ria: it must be intentional, integrated, intensive, and utilize the
interactions that result -- the four “I's.” Agroforestry systems
are deliberately established, integrate trees with crops and/or
livestock, are intensively managed, and utilize the interactions
that result to optimize yields of multiple products. The system
design and mix of products are tailored to the landowner’s
objectives.

To develop appropriate technologies and provide relevant
information on trees in grazing systems, the National
Agroforestry Center is teaming up with the NRCS Grazing
Lands Technology Institute to develop a “Working Trees for
Livestock” technology transfer and applications effort. We will
seek to work with stakeholders and cooperators to develop and
provide useful information, establish developmental projects to
fill information gaps, and develop applications tools. The effort
will focus on “the right tree/shrub in the right place for the
tight purpose,” and evaluate the benefits to be realized from
integrated systems and working tree practices that help main-
tain the health, productivity, and sustainability of grazing sys-
tems.

(Livestock from page 1) -
Livestock need protection because as
temperatures fall below certain critical
zones they must increase their intake of
feed in order to get the energy needed to
maintain body temperature. If the needed
additional energy cannot be obtained,
sickness or death can result. (See Table 1)
The effects of wind and cold on live-
stock can be significant. For example, cat-
tle on winter range require a 50 percent
increase in feed energy for normal activi-
ties. An additional 20 percent increase in
feed energy is needed to overcome the
added effects of exposure to combined
cold temperatures and wind. Studies in
Montana indicate that during mild win-
ters, beef cattle sheltered by windbreaks
gained an average of 34 to 35 pounds
more than cattle in an open feedlot.
During severe winters, cattle in feedlots

protected from the wind, maintained 10.6

more pounds than cattle in unprotected lots.

Sheep, however, are more naturally
adapted to cold climates. During severe
blizzards in areas with little natural cover,
windbreaks provide valuable protection
for the flock. Newborn lambs are espe-
cially vulnerable to cold temperatures and
suffer significant mortality rates under
cold, windy conditions. Providing wind
protection can significantly reduce these
losses.

Swine are also poorly adapted to deal
with extreme cold or heat. When raised in
open confinement in northern areas they
are subject to serious temperature stress.
Windbreak protection provides significant
benefits to producers in the form of
reduced feed requirements, increased
weight gain, and improved animal health.

Table 1

Coat description Critical Temperature
Summer coat or wet 59 degrees F

Fall coat 45 degrees F
Winter coat 32 degrees F
Heavy winter coat 18 degrees F

Critical Temperatures for Beef or Dairy Cattle
are determined in part by the condition of the
coat. Below the critical temperature, livestock
must expend more energy in order to keep
warm.

Furthermore, when hogs are raised in
confinement buildings with controlled
temperatures, windbreaks reduce the
amount of energy necessary to heat the
building.

Other types of livestock can also ben-
efit from shelter. Milk production in
Holstein and Jersey dairy cattle decline at

(See Livestock on page 7)

2 Inside Agroforestry


Development of Silvopastoral Systems in the Northern

Temperate Zone

by Terry R. Clason, Forestry Project Leader

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Hill Farm Research Station

Homer, Louisiana

Prior to European settlement, Native
Americans managed the forest forage
resource by burning twice a year. This
practice created an understory habitat that
produced an abundant supply of game.
Europeans introduced domesticated live-
stock production to this fire mediated
ecosystem. Unlike the Native American
spiritual sense of stewardship, early
European forage utilization bordered on
exploitation rather than sustainability. In
time, the need to conserve this valuable
forage resource was recognized.
Management practices that combined for-
est and livestock production were devel-
oped, spawning the science of forest
range management.

The traditional forest range livestock
production system relied on native for-
ages growing on commercial forest land.
The system required a large land base
because timber management practices,
burning and thinning, yielded a forage
resource of low nutrient and energy con-
tent, Forage management practices that
involved electric fencing, multi-pasture
grazing and rotational burning increased
forest range grazing capacity, but live-

“Silvopastures
are intensively managed
timber, forage, and livestock
interactions that simultaneously
produce forest-related
commodities and a high quality
forage resource.”

—Terry Clason

stock feeding supplementation was still
necessary when grazing native forages.
Thus, native forage resources restrict
commercial livestock production on forest
range grazing management systems.

Lack of a dependable forage resource
combined with a shrinking land base,
increasing management costs, social
awareness, and environmental constraints
stimulated interest in growing non-native
improved forage species under forest con-
ditions. The deliberate integration of
improved forage crops into a timber and

sph et

Brahma crossbred stocker cattle grazing costal bermudagrass in a 22-year-old loblolly pine

plantation.

livestock production system is called sil-
vopastoral management. Silvopastures are
intensively managed timber, forage, and
livestock interactions that simultaneously
produce forest-related commodities and a
high quality forage resource. Forest-relat-
ed commodities are any products or ser-
vices derived from a multiple use forest
management system. Since forest range is
a component of multiple use forest man-
agement, silvopastoral forage manage-
ment practices must provide a grazing
resource that ensures livestock production
continuity under a forest canopy. A suc-
cessful silvopastoral system combines tree
and forage crops that have compatible
management requirements. In general,
coniferous trees are better suited to sil-
vopastoral systems than hardwood trees.
They adapt to a variety of growing sites,
grow faster, and have conical crowns that
permit more light to reach the forest floor.
The forage crop should be a perennial
plant (warm or cool season), shade toler-
ant, responsive to intensive management
practices, and thrive under heavy utiliza-
tion.

Silvopastures can be developed in two
ways: 1) planting an improved forage in a
coniferous stand, or 2) planting conifers
in a pasture. Improved forage crops can
be established in any maturing coniferous
stand regardless of age, species composi-
tion, or tree stocking density providing
planting techniques include tree overstory
reduction, hardwood brush removal, and
seedbed preparation. In coniferous stands
of a marketable size, tree stocking density
can be reduced by commercially thinning
to a residual density of 100 trees/acre or a
maximum basal area of 60 ft?/acre.
Sapling age or younger stands should be
precommercially thinned to 100
trees/acre. Depending on size and species
composition, hardwood brush removal
can be accomplished with either herbi-
cides or heavy grazing pressure. Seedbed
preparation procedure must include a pre-
scribed burn in stands age 10 or older fol-

~ (See Sitvopastoral on page 7)

Inside Agroforestry 3