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 Competitiveness of the European Livestock Sector (Brussels, November 7 th 2012)
(Mio ha) -7.1 Mio ha EU-6 Eurostat Evolution of the permanent grassland area (Mio ha) 66 000 64 000 62 000-30% -15% 60 000 58 000 56 000 54 000 52 000 50 000 EU-15-(BE+LU) FAOSTAT -10 Mio ha
SOC content is higher under grassland Cropland Grassland France 40 t SOC/ha 70 t SOC/ha Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
Dynamics of C flow under grassland and crop land 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). Temporary grassland Permanent grassland source -600-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 NCS (g C m-2) sink Median (gc/m²/year) 100 72-600 -400-200 0 200 400 600 800 NCS (g C m-2) CarboEurope, GHG-Europe project, (Klumpp, Soussana et al) 38 Eu sites during 3 to 8 years Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
Water flows according to land use Broad-leaf forest SNG Conifer forest Evapotranspiration Run-off Percolation Arable land Need to be more precisely quantified in defferent contexts
Species involved in pollinisation Individual number of invertebrates per m² Bird species (Semi-natural) grasslands contribute positively to the biodiversity Arachnids Insect larva Ants Butterfly larva coleoptera Slugs (earthworms) Billeter et al., (2008) Billeter et al (2008) Pasture Cropland +No till Cropland Integration of perennial crop in rotations increase the specific wealth and abundance of invertebrates Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
Grassland reduces the risk of soil erosion 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 Cerdan et al. (2010) Multisward (delivrable 1.1) Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
Grassland contributes to reduce the use of pesticides % area having one or more pesticide application 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Grassland (%UAA) (Raison et al., 2008), Greendairy project Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
MJ/kg milk Grassland-based systems consume less non-renewable energy 5.0 4.0 3.1 1.4 Conventional Thomassen et al., 2008 Pasture/MS Beguin et al., 2008 Grazing, fert N Lovett et al., 2007 Grazing, WC Basset-Mens et al., 2008 Le Gall et al., 2009 Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
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 +++ +++ +++ - - - /+
% FA % saturated FA Grassland contributes positively to the quality of animal product 75 70 Milk Meat Compared with grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef is 65 0 25 50 75 100 1,2 1,0 Rum Ac 0,8 0,6 3 0,4 0,2 0 0 25 50 75 100 Proportion of grass in the diet (Couvreur et al., 2006) - 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) Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
Grassland and legumes based systems increase protein self-sufficiency 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) 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) 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 Brussels, 7 Nov 2012
FADN data Production cost ( /L) 0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0 Grassland (% forage area) Dairy systems based on grazing are competitive Net income difference between grazing and indoor feeding ( /100 kg milk) +2,0 +1,5 +1,0 +0,5 +0,0-0,5-1,0 BRE PdL BN AUV FC0 500 1000 1500 2000 74 59 82 62 81 68 Grass intake (kg DM cow/year) (Samson et al., 2011) (Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, EGF 2010)
SWOT analysis of grassland vs Maize 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 Opportunities - Greening component of the CAP reform - Social demand and political willingness / environment - Increase price of fossil energy - Meat and dairy products world market 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 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
Challenges for research 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
Thank you