IMPACT OF SHEEP MEAT IN THE CONSERVATION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES K. Osoro, R. Celaya, A. Martínez, U. García, R. Rosa Animal Production Systems - SERIDA
Available resources: Vegetation and Sheep
PERMANENT GRASSLANDS 60.840.280 ha across the EU-28 34.6% of the total Utilized Agricultural Area
EVOLUTION OF NUMBER OF HEADS OF SHEEP 1993-2013 Source: FAOSTAT
SHEEP CENSUSES IN AGROCLIMATIC ZONES ATLANTIC & BOREAL CONTINENTAL CONTINENTAL MEDITERRANEAN Source: FAOSTAT
Milions of heads Milions of heads Milions of heads CATTLE CENSUSES IN AGROCLIMATIC ZONES 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 ATLANTIC & BOREAL 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 Belgium Denmark Finland Ireland Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom 25 20 15 10 5 0 CONTINENTAL 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 Austria Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Germany Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia 30 25 20 France Greece 15 10 MEDITERRANEAN Italy Malta Portugal 5 Spain 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 Source: FAOSTAT
NUMBER OF ANIMALS CATTLE SHEEP Source: Eurostat. Data 2014
Percentage of heads of cattle vs sheep across the EU United Kingdom Sweden Netherlands Luxembourg Ireland Germany Finland Denmark Belgium ATLANTIC ZONE Slovenia Slovakia Romania Poland Lithuania Latvia Hungary Estonia Czech Republic Croatia Bulgaria Austria Spain Portugal Malta Italy Greece France Cyprus 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CONTINENTAL ZONE MEDITERRANEAN Cattle Sheep Source: Eurostat. Data 2012
SHEEP VERSUS CATTLE: STOCKS & PRODUCTION Source: FAOSTAT
Animal live weigth changes
g/day Body weight changes in heath-gorse shrublands in no lactating animals 500 400 300 200 Spring Summer 100 0-100 -200-300 -400-500 -600 Vacas Cows Yeguas Mares Ovejas Sheep Cabras Goats Grazing periods: sheep & goats: mid-may to late October /early November cows & mares: mid-june to September/October Osoro K.; Ferreira L.M.M.; García U.; Jáuregui B.M.; Rosa García R., Celaya R. 2012. Diet selection and performance of sheep and goats grazing on different heathland vegetation types. Small Ruminant 109, 119 127. Celaya R.; Ferreira L.M.M.; García U.; Rosa García R.; Osoro K. 2011. Diet selection and performance of cattle and horses grazing in heathlands". Animal 5, 1467-1473.
BW gain per LU (g/day.lu) Daily body weight (BW) gains per livestock unit (LU) in partially improved heath-gorse shrublands 4000 3000 Cattle Horse Sheep Goat 2004 2005 2000 1000 2004 2005 0 DAMS OFFSPRING -1000 Period 1 Period 2 Overall Period 1 Period 2 Overall Period 1 Period 1 K. Osoro, L.M.M. Ferreira, U. García, A. Martínez and R. CelayaA (2015). Forage intake, digestibility and performance of cattle, horses, sheep and goats grazing together on an improved heathland. Animal Production Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/an15153
Vegetation dynamics
Phytomass amount and composition in heathlands and mechanically cleared areas after three years under sheep grazing or ungrazed (Celaya et al., 2007) kg DM/ha 25 000 Heathland Cleared area 20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 Sheep Ungrazed Sheep Ungrazed Heather Gorse Herbaceous
Plant cover and aerial phytomass in gorse (Ulex gallii)-dominated shrublands grazed by sheep or ungrazed after burning in May 2001 (Jáuregui et al., 2007, 2009) Cover (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sheep grazed Ungrazed Oc Ju My Ag Oc My Ag Oc My Ag Oc My Ju 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006 Bare ground Dead matter Herbaceous Gorse Heather Phytomass (kg DM/ha) 30 000 Sheep grazed Ungrazed 20 000 Herbaceous Gorse 10 000 Heather 0 Sp 2001 Jl 2002 My Ag Nv Ju Oc Ju Ag Ju Ju 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006
Plant cover, gorse (Ulex gallii) height and phytomass in gorse-dominated shrublands grazed by sheep or ungrazed five years after mechanical clearing (Benavides et al., 2009) % Cover cm Gorse height kg DM/ha Phytomass 100 60 40 000 80 60 40 20 50 40 30 20 10 30 000 20 000 10 000 0 0 0 Sheep Ungrazed Sheep Ungrazed Sheep Ungrazed Heather Gorse Herbaceous Dead matter Bare ground
Brooms (Genista florida) in high mountain pastures grazed by cattle or sheep
Grass flowerstems in high mountain pastures under sheep grazing could be controled by cattle grazing
Impact on invertebrate fauna
Axis 2 (10.4%) Diversity of invertebrate fauna 0.8 Sheep*Herbaceous Xne Hla Goat*Gorse Goat*Heather Osp Pca Pag Lba Svi Pni Lbl Cas Aeq Sir Ihi Ose Cge Tne Ama Cma Pla Aac Har Pcu Pst Mfo Cne Nha Sab Tte Apu Cpu Sga Sheep*Gorse Ppu -0.6 Sheep*Heather Goat*Herbaceous -0.8 Axis 1 (20.4%) 0.8
Grazing pressure and sustainability
ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT SITUATION A. Partial accomplishment of theoretical objectives of CAP: extensification, sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity. On the contrary current scenarios involve intensification / abandonment and the subsequent increase of large wildfires and floods with invaluable economical, environmental and social costs. ABANDONMENT CAP INTENSIFICATION B. Lack of specific support from the administrations for the development of more extensive and sustainable productions, as it occurs with meat sheep. The support is not just about allocating payments, which is necessary, but it should also include guide and advise to develop activities that meet the pursued goals
Aspects that have contributed to unsustainable dynamics with invaluable environmental costs 1. The objectives supported by the CAP have been linked to animal production systems focused on production. A clear example is the subsidy payment per liter of milk produced regardless of the degree of intensification of the production model and the level of use of the renewable natural resources. This is quite contradictory to the intended prioritization of the extensification. 2. The objectives of genetic improvement have focused on quantitative production, forgetting the qualitative and environmental aspects, and ecosystem services. The possible adverse effects of the residues from antiparasitic treatments on local biodiversity (such as the coprophagous fauna) or the resistance of parasites to such products have also not been taken into consideration. 3. The carcass conformation (butcher quality) and the meat quality (sensory and functional quality) are frequently (sometimes intentionally) confused. This is detrimental to the indigenous breeds better adapted to environmental conditions (climate and food supply) and potential pathogens.
4. The local breeds should be promoted because: a) they are the basis for the maintenance of PDO and PGI products, i.e. a differentiable production, b) allow an efficient use of nutritional resources, c) their activity prevents encroachment and the accumulation of flammable biomass. 5. Little appreciation by society of the role of grazing, particularly small ruminants, and therefore of shepherds, in aspects mentioned in the previous section, in addition to their contribution to the cultural richness of a territory. YEAR 2004 LAST MERINO TRASHUMANCE FLOCK IN SOMIEDO NATURAL PARK (ASTURIAS)
6. Inefficient control of predatory wildlife which severely impacts on small ruminants. This trend is supported by urban groups unaware of rural life, especially in the marginal areas, and its role in the conservation of biodiversity and other key ecosystem services for the rest of the society. 7. Rural society condense few votes, but cover wide territories. They are frequently ignored by politicians regardless of their essential contribution to preserve the biodiversity compared to the pollution originated in the consumer urban societies. 8. The plans for the management of wildlife, as well as other strategies developed in rural areas, are frequently designed in the offices by technocrats which ignore the real problems and their consequences.
No. heads EVOLUTION OF LIVESTOCK & LANDSCAPE 1956 2015 10.5 % 2000 1500 1000 CATTLE SHEEP GOATS 500 0 1902 1920 1947 1985 1994 2003 2007 2011 2014
ABANDONMENT FIRE RISK Forest fires 1998-2002, based on satellite observations. Source: AEE
2010 Before 2011 After wildfire
In summary, we must learn to establish mechanisms of action adapted to the new society but which pay special attention to the real actors in rural areas: those who manage the tools (animals) and the ones which generate ecosystem services, food and other products differentiable by their high quality and productive models, and who also preserve the cultural heritage which benefits to the rest of the society
DISSAPEARANCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for all you are doing for us
THANK YOU VERY MUCH again