Wood production and financial return in two silvopastoral systems

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31285/AGRO.27.793

Keywords:

silvopastoral system, cattle raising, productive integration, cellulose, Uruguay

Abstract

Silvopastoral systems combine forestry and livestock activities, establishing productive and economic interactions that must be known in order to project their viability in the medium to long term. Important aspects of these systems are spacing arrangement, wood production and economic return. The present study was carried out on a farm with commercial forestry and aimed at evaluating wood production and its financial return in two silvopastoral systems of Eucalyptus globulus: Conventional Forestry System (CFS) in a plantation arrangement of 3.5×2.7 m, and Silvopastoral System (SSRA) (2×2)+8 m of alley. Each system was evaluated in three strata, at age 68 months. No differences (p> 0.05) were found for Survival (S), Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), Height (H), and Dominant Height (DH) between CFS and SSRA values. However, both systems differed (p <0.05) in wood production values (m3/ha) at age 68 months: CFS produced 83.7 m3/ha, while SSRA produced 60 m3/ha. Optimal technical rotations estimated were 12 and 13 years for CFS and SSRA, respectively. The Equivalent Annual Income (EAI) was 140 and 141 US$/ha/year for CFS and SSRA, respectively. However, SSRA requires a lower plantation investment and provides greater liquidity throughout the rotation. Forestry systems can be designed in ways that allow greater spatial integration of livestock, becoming more complementary systems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alconada M, Bussoni A, Rosa R, Carrillo J. El bio-drenaje para el control del exceso hídrico en Pampa Arenosa, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Invest Geog. 2009;(68):50-72.

Alves DHA, Leles PS, Cabrera E, Marques A, Abilio F. Crescimento de clone de Eucalyptus urophylla x E. grandis em diferentes espaçamentos. Floresta. 2014;44(3):431-40.

Anjos AFT, Sartori WW, Tonini H, Morales MM, Silva VP. Performance and quality of wood in a clone of Eucalyptus in monoculture and silvipastoral system. Nativa. 2016;4(2):77-81.

Araujo R, Almeida JC, Ribeiro E, Araujo S, Morenz M, Rangel B, Bonaparte T, Deminicis B. Dendrometry characteristics of Eucalyptus urophylla in silvopastoral system under different planting spacings with Brachiaria decumbens. Revista Brasileira de Agropecuária Sustentável. 2011;1(2):39-44.

Belsky AJ. Influences of trees on savanna productivity: tests of shade, nutrients, and tree-grass competition. Ecology. 1994;75(4):922-32.

Bernardino FS, Garcia R. Sistemas Silvipastoris. Pesq Flor Bras [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Dec 28];(60):77. doi: 10.4336/2009.pfb.60.77.

Bernardo AL, Reis MGF, Reis GG, Harrison RB, Firme DJ. Effect of spacing on growth and biomass distribution in Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. pellita and E. urophylla plantations in southeastern Brazil. For Ecol Manag. 1998;104(1-3):1-13.

Bettinger P, Boston K, Siry J, Grebner D. Forest management and planning. Burlington: Academic Press; 2009. 331p.

Boscana M, Varela F. Factores que influyen en la incorporación del rubro forestal en predios agropecuarios de los departamentos de Florida, Flores y Durazno [grade’s thesis on Internet]. Montevideo (UY): Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía; 2011 [cited 2022 Dec 28]. 130p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3VnBZ5G.

Brauer D, Ares A. Aboveground biomass partitioning in loblolly pine silvopastoral stands: spatial configuration and pruning effects. For Ecol Manag. 2005; 219:176-84.

Bussoni A, Boscana M, Varela F, Llanos E, Picasso V, Cubbage F, Alconada M, Carricaburu F. Producción ganadera y forestal: análisis de sistemas de producción integrados. Montevideo: INIA; 2019. 146p.

Castaño JP, Giménez A, Ceroni M, Furest J, Aunchayna R. Caracterización agroclimática del Uruguay 1980-2009. Montevideo: INIA; 2011. 34p. (Serie Técnica N° 193).

Cerqueira CL, Môra R, Tonini H, Vendruscolo DGS, Lanssanova LR, Arce JE, Diniz CCC. Efeito do espaçamento e arranjo de plantio na relação hipsométrica de eucalipto em sistema consorciado de produção. Nativa. 2019;7(6):763. doi: 10.31413/nativa.v7i6.7643.

Cubagge F, Balmelli G, Bussoni A, Noellemeyer E, Pachas A, Fassola F, Colcombet L, Rossner B, Frey G, Dube F, De Silva L, Stevenson H, Hamilton J, Hubbard W. Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst. 2012;86(3):303-14.

Cubbage F, Davis R, Frey GE, Behr DC, Sills EO. Financial and economic evaluation guidelines for international forestry projects. In: Pancel L, Köhl M, editors. Tropical forestry handbook. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 2875-96.

Cubbage F, Mac Donagh P, Balmelli G, Olmos VM, Bussoni A, Rubilar R, Torre RD, Lord R, Huang J, Hoeflich VA, Murara M, Kanieski B, Hall P, Yao R, Adams P, Kotze H, Monges E, Pérez CH, Wikle J, Abt R, Gonzalez R, Carrero O. Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011. N Z J For Sci. 2014;44:S7. doi: 10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S7.

FAO. Evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales 2015: ¿Cómo están cambiando los bosques del mundo? [Internet]. 2a ed. Roma: FAO; 2015 [cited 2022 Dec 28]. 44p. Available from: www.fao.org/3/a-i4793s.pdf.

Ferrere P, López GA, Boca RT, Galetti MA, Esparrach CA, Pathauer PS. Efecto de la densidad de plantación sobre el crecimiento de Eucalyptus globulus en un ensayo Nelder modificado. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For. 2005;14(2):174-84.

Gallo L. Sistemas Silvopastoriles. Rev Plan Agropecu [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2022 Dec 28];(116):30-5. Available from: https://bit.ly/3hZSh7i.

Henskens FL, Battaglia M, Cherry ML, Beadle CL. Physiological basis of spacing effects on tree growth and form in Eucalyptus globulus. Trees - Struct Funct. 2001;15(6):365-77.

Hirigoyen A, Rachid C. Sistema de Apoyo a la Gestión Forestal [Internet]. Version SAG 2014-2015. Montevideo: INIA; [date unknown]. Available from: http://www.iniaforestaluy.com/sag/ingreso.aspx. Subscription required to view.

Klemperer D. Forest reosurce economics and finance. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996. 551p.

Lacorte S, Regina S, Colcombet L, Crechi E, Esquivel J, Fassola H, Wick RÁ. Silvopastoral Systems Developed in Misiones and Corrientes, Argentina. In: Peri PL, Dube F, Varella A, editors. Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 9-39.

Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, DIEA (UY). Serie “Precio de la Tierra”: compraventas primer semestre 2019 [Internet]. Montevideo: MGAP; 2019 [cited 2022 Dec 28]. 6p. Available from: https://bit.ly/3hQb9Wl.

Molina C. Resultados del monitoreo de empresas ganaderas: carpetas verdes 2018/2019 [Internet]. Montevideo: Instituto Plan Agropecuario; 2019 [cited 2022 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.planagropecuario.org.uy/uploads/monitoreos/33_Resumen%20de%20Carpetas%20Verdes%202018-2019.pdf.

Nilsen AR, Skarpe C, Moe SR. La conducta del ganado con respecto a la distancia a los árboles en Muy Muy, Nicaragua. Agroforestería en las Américas [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Dec 28];(47):61-7. Available from: https://bit.ly/3GnuLdA.

Oliveira TK, Macedo RLG, Venturin N, Higashikawa EM. Desempenho Silvicultural e Produtivo de Eucalipto sob Diferentes Arranjos Espaciais em Sistema Agrosilvopastoril. Pesq Flor Bras [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Dec 28];(60):01. doi: 10.4336/2009.pfb.60.01.

Paciullo DSC, de Castro CRT, Gomide CA de M, Fernandes PB, da Rocha WSD, Müller MD, Rossiello ROP. Soil bulk density and biomass partitioning of Brachiaria decumbens in a silvopastoral system. Sci Agric. 2010;67(5):598-603.

Pascale R. Decisiones financieras. Buenos Aires: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009. 938p.

Peri P, Dube F, Varella A. Opportunities and Challenges for Silvopastoral Systems in the Subtropical and Temperate Zones of South America. In: Peri P, Dube F, Varella A, editors. Silvopastoral Systems in Southern South America. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 257-70. (Advances in Agroforestry; 11).

Ranieri RP, Reis GG, Reis MGF, Oliveira Neto S, Leite HG, Melido RCN, Lopes HNS, Souza FC. Eucalypt growth in monoculture and silvopastoral systems with varied tree initial densities and spatial arrangements. Agrofor Syst. 2013;87:1295-307.

Rusch G, Skarpe C. Procesos ecológicos asociados con el pastoreo y su aplicación en sistemas silvopastoriles. Agroforestería en las Américas [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Dec 28];(47):12-9. Available from: https://bit.ly/3jAkcuO.

Shibu J, Dollinger J. Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agrofor Syst. 2019;93(1):1-9.

Sorrentino A. Manual para diseño y ejecución de inventarios forestales. Montevideo: Hemisferio Sur; 1997. 368p.

Tuset R, Duran F. Manual de maderas comerciales: equipos y procesos de utilización. Montevideo: Hemisferio Sur; 2007. 370p.

Published

2023-03-09

How to Cite

1.
Boscana M, Bussoni A, Bentancur O. Wood production and financial return in two silvopastoral systems. Agrocienc Urug [Internet]. 2023 Mar. 9 [cited 2024 Apr. 22];27:e793. Available from: https://agrocienciauruguay.uy/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/793

Issue

Section

Forest science and landscape management
QR Code

Altmetric

Article metrics
Abstract views
Galley vies
PDF Views
HTML views
Other views

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>