Expanding agroforestry in Minnesota, USA: assessing the potential for silvopasture as an alternative to passive woodland grazing A Thesis(cid:1) SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA(cid:2)(cid:1) BY Madeline M. Ford IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Diomy S. Zamora Dean Current August 2016 © Madeline M. Ford 2016 Acknowledgements Thanks to my advisors Dr. Diomy Zamora, University of Minnesota Extension Educator/Extension Professor of Forestry, and Dr. Dean Current, Research Associate and Director of the Center for Integrated Natural Resources and Agricultural Management for their guidance in my graduate program. I would also like to thank my third committee member Dr. Joe Magner, for providing hard-working and intelligent students to help with field and lab work, as well as his experience working with landowners. Eleanor Burkett for providing me housing and a sense of home on my visits to Brainerd, and providing Zoe a place to call home for the summer. Zoe Bachman, for all of her work identifying plants, clipping grass, weighing cows, collecting water samples, and checking fences. Undergraduate students Tanner, Blair, Jeff, and Bailey for their help especially with infiltration tests, weighing cows, collecting biomass and digging wells. Rusty, Travis, and Kyle for their previous work and insightful suggestions. Sophia Vaughan, Jenny Haug, and Shawna Bork for their previous planning and data collection during the first two years of the project. Farmer cooperators The Caughey family especially Dan and Becky (Jerring), Vicky Kettlewell and Greg Booth, and Steve Moe for allowing us to use their land for the study. i Abstract 177,791 ha of woodlands in Minnesota, USA are grazed. Often these woodlands are not managed specifically for timber or cattle benefits. This lack of management often leads to decreased timber value and reduced forage yields. Silvopasture is a potential alternative to this lack of land management on Minnesota woodlots. Silvopasture is a type of agroforestry that intentionally combines trees, forage and livestock in an intensively-managed system. However, very limited information exists about silvopasture use in Minnesota. This three-year study (2013-2015) examines the potential for silvopasture success in Minnesota through comparing production of unmanaged woodland grazing, silvopasture and open pasture sites. The study collaborated with three farmers in Central Minnesota to assess these three grazing systems on their land. Silvopasture paddocks were established through thinning and seeding woodland areas. The study assessed forage production, forage quality, species diversity, and livestock performance. Forage production was generally greater in silvopasture systems compared to unmanaged woodland grazing systems, and forage quality was lower in open pasture systems, at least during the first year. Additionally, species diversity was typically lowest in open pasture systems, and comparable between silvopasture and woodland areas. Livestock performance was similar between the grazing systems. Results indicate that silvopasture has potential in Minnesota, but more research is needed to develop specific ii management guidelines as well as monitor silvopasture for longer periods of time. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. i Abstract ................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables .................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ...................................................................................................... x Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Background and management of silvopasture systems .............. 4 1.1. The history of woodland grazing ........................................................................ 4 1.1. Silvopasture as a solution ................................................................................... 5 1.2. Silvopasture Management ................................................................................... 5 1.2.1. Forages ........................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2. Livestock .......................................................................................................... 7 1.2.3. Trees ............................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Benefits and Limitations .................................................................................... 10 1.3.1. Trees and forage ........................................................................................... 10 1.3.2. Trees and livestock ........................................................................................ 11 1.3.3. Soil Health ..................................................................................................... 12 1.3.4. Water quality .................................................................................................. 12 1.3.5. Financial ........................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 2. Impact of managed woodland grazing on forage quantity, quality and livestock performance: the potential for silvopasture in Central Minnesota, USA ................................................................................................. 16 iv 2.1. Synopsis .............................................................................................................. 16 2.2. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 17 2.3. Materials and Methods ....................................................................................... 20 2.3.1. Study Sites .................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2. Systems and System Establishment ............................................................. 20 2.3.3. Grazing Management .................................................................................... 22 2.3.4. Forage quantity & quality assessments ......................................................... 23 2.3.5. Livestock performance measurement ........................................................... 24 2.3.6. Weather ......................................................................................................... 25 2.3.7. Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 25 2.4. Results ................................................................................................................. 25 2.4.1. Forage Production ......................................................................................... 25 2.4.2. Forage Quality ............................................................................................... 27 2.4.3. Livestock Performance .................................................................................. 28 2.5. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 29 2.5.1. Forage production ......................................................................................... 29 2.5.2. Forage quality ................................................................................................ 32 2.5.3. Livestock Performance .................................................................................. 34 2.6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 2 Tables ........................................................................................................ 37 Chapter 2 Figures ...................................................................................................... 46 Chapter 3. Environmental impacts of silvopasture management in Central Minnesota, USA: species diversity and soil health ........................................ 49 3.1. Synopsis .............................................................................................................. 49 v 3.2. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 49 3.3. Materials Methods .............................................................................................. 52 3.3.1. Study Sites .................................................................................................... 52 3.3.2. Systems and System Establishment ............................................................. 52 3.3.3. Grazing Management .................................................................................... 54 3.3.4. Vegetation Sampling ..................................................................................... 54 3.3.5. Species Diversity & Richness ........................................................................ 55 3.3.6. Soil Health ..................................................................................................... 55 3.3.7. Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................... 56 3.4. Results ................................................................................................................. 56 3.4.1. Species Diversity ........................................................................................... 56 3.4.2. Species Richness .......................................................................................... 57 3.4.3. Soil Health ..................................................................................................... 57 3.5. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 58 3.5.1. Species Diversity and Richness .................................................................... 58 3.5.2. Soil Health ..................................................................................................... 61 3.6. Conclusions and Implications ........................................................................... 62 Chapter 3 Tables ........................................................................................................ 64 Chapter 3 Figures ...................................................................................................... 71 Chapter 4. Silvopasture in Central Minnesota: perceptions of landowners and natural resource professionals ................................................................ 72 4.1. Synopsis .............................................................................................................. 72 4.2. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 73 4.3. Methods ............................................................................................................... 75 vi 4.3.1. Natural Resource Professionals .................................................................... 75 4.3.2. Landowners ................................................................................................... 76 4.3.3. Statistical Analysis ......................................................................................... 77 4.4. Results ................................................................................................................. 77 4.4.1. Landowner Survey ......................................................................................... 77 4.4.2. Natural Resource Professionals Survey ........................................................ 79 4.5. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 82 4.6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 87 Chapter 4 Tables ........................................................................................................ 89 Chapter 4 Figures ...................................................................................................... 94 Chapter 5. Conclusions .................................................................................... 99 References ....................................................................................................... 103 vii List of Tables Table 1.1. Intensity levels of rotational grazing compared (Undersander et al. 2014). .................................................................................................................. 14 Table 2.1. Summary of soil characteristics of each paddock at each site. ......... 37 Table 2.2. Common tree species found in each silvopasture system. Species are expected to be similar in woodland systems at the same site. ............................ 37 Table 2.3. Summary of system establishment and management occurring from summer 2013 to spring 2014. .............................................................................. 38 Table 2.4. Cow introduction dates and total pasture and fallow days for 2014. .. 39 Table 2.5. Cow introduction dates and total pasture and fallow days for 2015. .. 40 Table 2.6. Biomass production in 2014 and 2015 showing system variation within each season. Different letters in each column show significant differences within a season and averaged across all seasons (p<0.05). ......................................... 41 Table 2.7. Biomass production in 2014 and 2015 showing seasonal variation within each system. Different letters in each row show significant differences within a system, by year (p<0.05). ....................................................................... 41 Table 2.8. Nutritive quality standards in 2014 for system differences (open pasture, silvopasture and woodland) and site differences (Booth, Caughey and Moe). Means with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05). ................ 42 Table 2.9. Nutritive quality standards in 2015 for early, mid and late seasons. Means with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05). .......................... 42 Table 2.10. Total precipitation (cm) during each month in the study period for 2014 and 2015. ................................................................................................... 43 Table 2.11. Summary of grazing parameters including cow and calf ADG for 2014. ................................................................................................................... 44 Table 2.12. Summary of grazing parameters including cow and calf ADG for 2015. ................................................................................................................... 45 Table 3.1. Summary of soil characteristics of each paddock at each site. ......... 64 Table 3.2. Common tree species found in each silvopasture paddock. Species are expected to be similar in woodland paddocks at the same site. ................... 65 viii