Restoring value to grasslands Jean-Louis Peyraud 1,2 , Alain Peeters - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
restoring value to grasslands
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Restoring value to grasslands Jean-Louis Peyraud 1,2 , Alain Peeters - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 08, 2023 221 likes •392 views

Restoring value to grasslands Jean-Louis Peyraud 1,2 , Alain Peeters 3 1 INRA Scientific direction of Agriculture, 2 Coordinator of the FP7 project MULTISWARD 3 RHEA Seminar Resource-use Efficiency: Implications for the Sustainability and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

slide-2
SLIDE 2

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

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

200 400 600 800

NCS (g C m-2)

  • 600
  • 400
  • 200

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

slide-5
SLIDE 5

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

slide-6
SLIDE 6

http://www.multisward.eu

Brussels, 7 Nov 2012

Billeter et al., (2008)

Bird species Species involved in pollinisation Individual number of invertebrates per m²

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)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

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)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

http://www.multisward.eu

Brussels, 7 Nov 2012

Grassland contributes to reduce the use of pesticides

Grassland (%UAA) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % area having one or more pesticide application

(Raison et al., 2008), Greendairy project

slide-9
SLIDE 9

http://www.multisward.eu

Brussels, 7 Nov 2012

4.0 5.0 3.1 1.4

MJ/kg milk

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

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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

+++ +++ +++

  • - - /+
slide-11
SLIDE 11

http://www.multisward.eu

Brussels, 7 Nov 2012

 3

Rum Ac 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 25 50 75 100 65 70 75 25 50 75 100

% saturated FA

% FA

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)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

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)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

http://www.multisward.eu

0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 BRE PdL BN 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 BRE PdL BN

  • 1,0
  • 0,5

+0,0 +0,5 +1,0 +1,5 +2,0 500 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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

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

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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

slide-16
SLIDE 16

http://www.multisward.eu

Thank you