Re-Design of an Agro-Silvopastural Montado System on a Large-Scale Farm in Portugal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RE-DESIGN OF AN AGRO-SILVOPASTURAL MONTADO SYSTEM ON A LARGE-SCALE FARM IN PORTUGAL MSc Thesis Study field: Campo Frio farm Paulo Martinho Supervisors: Kees Van Veluw , Jeroen Groot, Alexander Wesel Farming Systems Ecology Group FSE - 80430 Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands February 2016 RE-DESIGN OF AN AGRO-SILVOPASTURAL MONTADO SYSTEM ON A LARGE-SCALE FARM IN PORTUGAL Paulo Martinho February 2016 M.Sc. Thesis WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY Farming Systems Ecology Group FSE - 80424 ISARA-Lyon Department Agroecology and Environment Supervisors: Kees Van Veluw, Wageningen University Jeroen Groot, Wageningen University Alexander Wesel, ISARA – Lyon University ABSTRACT Campo Frio is a farm that in the last years was in some areas overused, due to intensive production of cereals and eucalypts, and in other areas underused, completely abandoned full of shrub invasion. These landuse have created several problems to the farm along the last decades like soil erosion, deforestation, extinction of fauna and flora species, wildfires and also, losing an important patrimony of Portugal that is the Montado system. Montado is an agro-silvo-pastural production system that has more than 500 years and combine trees (Oaks), shrubs, cereals production and extensive grazing animals like pigs, sheep, goats and cows. The aim of this study was to re-design a large scale farm, based on four steps: 1) Farm diagnosis, 2) Define objectives for the farm’s future, 3) Design the farm and 4) Sensitivity analysis, supported by two models Farm DESIGN and NDICEA. The design undertaken was an extensive Montado system, combining 50 sow Black Iberian pigs and 600 Churra do Campo sheep with the goal to have a self sufficient farm in terms of animal feed with a specific diet and crop rotation, in a 621ha farm. The results of 2 model programs (FarmDESIGN and NDICEA), literature review and opinion of several experts, showed that the proposed design; crop and animals diversity, extensive systems, stocking rate, crop rotation, crops and animal management, is a viable solution in all parameters, agronomical, environmental and economical. The results in FarmDESIGN indicated that the interactions between animals, trees, pasture, crops of this design will create a sustainable system regarding animal feed (feed requirement vs feed available balanced), organic matter (SOM balance 2233 kg/ha) and profit (€ 148.476). The nitrogen balance, NDICEA illustrated that with intercropping (cereals and leguminous) and with a certain amount of animal + green manure incorporated in the soil, the nitrogen uptake vs. nitrogen available will be balanced. Nevertheless, labor required (15.328 h/year), acorn production required (228.000 kg DM) and rainfall / water availability may cause serious trade offs for the re-design. After re-design, three scenarios were created to make a sensitivity analysis and explore the limiting factors (acorns and water). Scenario: 1) dry year with a low acorn production; scenario 2) reduction of the irrigation system area; and scenario 3) combination of both. According to the scenarios it is possible to reduce the area of irrigated fields, relying more on precipitation and increasing the rainfed fields. However, if a low yield of acorn production with low precipitation occurs for several years, the farm will face large difficulties in the long term. i ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Firstly I would like to say thanks to my main supervisor Kees Van Veluw. Thank you for your availability, knowledge, ideas, and passion for the long and endless meetings and also for your patience to understand my complex brain. To my professors Jeroen Groot and Alexander Wezel thank you for being always available for my questions and thank you for your support improving my thesis and also myself. A special thanks to a marvelous and wisdom person, Gerard Oomen, thank you for your help with NDICEA and crop rotation. To the manager of the farm, that is so many times referred in this thesis, António Tomás, and the responsible for the animals Taraz, thank you for the opportunity, time, advices and support.I would like also to thanks Emanuel for your support with the program ArcGIS and time spent to teach me how to use the program. To my good friend João Vasco Silva thanks for the inspirational talks, motivation, ideas, comments and discussions, and thank you for your friendship, all the best for you. To my colleagues and friends in farming system ecology group and to my friends that were in Wageningen (Organic Agriculture group), Lyon (AgroEcology group) and Sweden (Ali), thank you for your friendship and support. Lastly but certainly not least, my thanks to my family father, mother and brother. Thank you for your constant support and love and for always giving me the confidence to persevere. iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ iii 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Montado System .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Institution IPF .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Research aim, research questions and hypotheses ............................................... 5 1.3.1. Research aim ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2. Research questions and hypotheses ................................................................................. 5 2. Material and methods .................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Case Study .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Research framework .......................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Step 1 – Farm diagnosis ..................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Step 2 – Objectives for the farm ...................................................................................... 9 2.5 Step 3 – Design of the farm ............................................................................................. 10 2.5.1 - Animal system ......................................................................................................................................10 2.5.2 – Agropastoral system .........................................................................................................................12 2.5.3 – Silvo-Pastoral system Montado ...................................................................................................12 2.6 Step 4 – Scenario and sensitivity analysis ................................................................ 12 2.7 Modeling – FarmDESIGN and NDICEA ........................................................................ 13 2.7.1 FarmDESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.7.2 NDICEA ......................................................................................................................................... 14 3. Results .............................................................................................................................15 3.1 Redesign - qualitative results........................................................................................ 15 3.1.1 - Animal system ......................................................................................................................................16 3.1.2 - Agropasture system ...........................................................................................................................22 3.1.3 - Silvopasture system ...........................................................................................................................24 3.2. Redesign quantitative results ...................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 FarmDESIGN .............................................................................................................................. 28 3.2.2 NDICEA ......................................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Scenario, sensitivity analysis ........................................................................................ 34 3.3.1. Scenario 1 ................................................................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................... 35 3.3.3 Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................... 37 4. Discussion ......................................................................................................................39 5. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................43