Silvopastoral Systems: Is the Transition Worth It?
Silvopastoral systems (SPS) integrate livestock, pastures, and fodder trees or shrubs on the same farm to combine livestock production with environmental services.
ANIMAL PRODUCTION
8/14/20256 min read
Silvopastoral systems (SPS) integrate livestock, pastures, and fodder trees or shrubs on the same farm to combine livestock production with environmental services (1). Unlike traditional extensive ranching—which in many regions leaves degraded soils (for example, it's estimated that nearly 77% of grazing lands in Colombia are moderately or severely degraded) (2)—SPS aim to intensify production on a smaller area, improving efficiency. In practice, this means planting trees (timber or fruit) and/or leguminous shrubs within rotational pastures. While the short-term transition requires an investment in nurseries and specialized management, various studies show that the productive, economic, and environmental benefits are far superior to conventional ranching.
Productive and Economic Benefits
SPS often increase forage and animal productivity. For instance, it's been observed that farms with SPS can boost milk production by up to 46.2% (3). This aligns with research project data: in Antioquia, Colombia, an experiment with silvopasture reported "greater milk production and weight gain" from cattle, thanks to tree shade and enriched shrubs (4). The shade reduces heat stress, and leguminous shrubs (e.g., botones de oro, mata ratón, cratylia) add protein to the grass, improving herd weight gain and fertility (4, 5).
Economic efficiency also improves. By incorporating timber trees, producers gain additional income (from selling wood or fruit) and spread maintenance costs across multiple activities. Several studies quantify these savings: a Colombian initiative found that SPS reduced production costs by 19% in just six months (6). This is due to lower expenses on fertilizers, concentrates, or mineral salt (by improving soil fertility and forage quality) (7). As a result, the investment in SPS is usually recovered quickly: according to the coordinator of the Sustainable Colombian Ranching project, "it's an investment that pays for itself and only brings an increase and improvement in productivity" (8). Favorable results have also been obtained in Mexico: for example, at the "Los Huarinches" Ranch in Michoacán, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) increased from 0.7% with traditional ranching to 13.3% using silvopasture (9). In general, SPS tend to deliver higher profitability than conventional systems: one analysis found that the more area dedicated to SPS, the higher the IRR, rising from 12% (5 planted hectares) to 19.4% (15 hectares) (10). In contrast, traditional ranching operations often show low profitability or losses (11).
Animal Welfare Under Shade and Diversified Forage
Trees in the pasture provide shade and shelter for livestock, which improves their thermal comfort and productivity. Tree shade can reduce the perceived temperature by several degrees, lowering heat stress; various studies indicate that this shelter can increase animal production by 8 to 20% (5). In particular, it's been documented that grazing under trees boosts milk production by about 12–15% and increases the conception rate by 20% (5). At the same time, shade reduces heatstroke and decreases mortality during high-temperature periods (5, 12).
Leguminous shrubs improve the livestock's diet: for example, species like Cratylia or Forage Peanut (Maní Forrajero) provide extra vitamins and protein to the grass, promoting weight gain (4, 12). Additionally, trees protect against cold winds: they can reduce gusts and the effects of cold by up to 50% (12), stabilizing the ambient temperature. Together, these factors increase the herd's comfort and feeding efficiency, leading to greater weight and milk production per head (4, 5).
Positive Environmental Impacts
Silvopastoral systems offer significant environmental benefits. Incorporating trees and shrubs increases soil organic matter (from leaf litter and roots) and improves its structure, which favors water infiltration and nutrient retention (13, 14). Studies in the Colombian tropics show that soil organic carbon content can increase by more than 50% with SPS compared to open pastures (15). On a global scale, this means greater CO₂ sequestration: in one case, it was estimated that producing the same amount of meat with SPS uses 12,000 hectares instead of more land, reducing the net balance of greenhouse gases by about 3,000 tons of CO₂ equivalent (16). Trees also prevent erosion and protect watersheds: the forage and leaf litter cushion the impact of wind and rain, reducing runoff (14).
Even biological diversity often grows. A mixed landscape of grasses and trees supports more wildlife and pollinators than a grass monoculture. The U.S. Forest Service reports that SPS "can increase wildlife diversity and improve water quality" (14). In contrast to intensive barns and feedlots, a silvopastoral pasture offers a more attractive landscape and fewer problems with odors, dust, or pests (14). These environmental benefits (better soil quality, greater carbon sequestration, and ecosystem services) make SPS a more sustainable model than conventional ranching (14, 17).
Common Myths vs. Evidence
Myth: "SPS reduce meat and milk production." Evidence contradicts this idea. On the contrary, by improving the microclimate and forage quality, SPS increase productivity per hectare. For example, Fedegán confirmed that ranchers with SPS were able to increase their milk production by 46.2% (3). Additionally, as cited above, various studies show increases of up to 12–15% in milk production and better conception rates under trees (5). In short, forage diversification doesn't reduce yield; it improves it by keeping animals less stressed and better nourished.
Myth: "SPS are very expensive and inaccessible." While they do require an initial investment (seedlings, electric fences, labor), in the medium term they reduce operating costs. By growing improved legumes, nitrogen fertilizer costs are saved, and tree shade reduces the need for energy for cooling or supplements. The Colombian Ministry of Agriculture's report shows a 19% reduction in production costs in just six months of implementing SPS (6). Moreover, surveyed producers claim that the investment "pays for itself" thanks to the yields and captured carbon (8). Even small farms can adapt: pilot projects in the Peruvian Amazon demonstrated that integrating protein banks and trees recovered degraded soils and improved meat production, without the need for complex technology (18). With proper technical support (advice, local nurseries, incentives), costs can be spread out and the transition is feasible even for family farms.
Myth: "It requires a lot of specialized knowledge." SPS do involve learning new practices (different pasture rotation, tree management), but they are not unattainable. Agricultural organizations offer free training or forestry subsidies (for example, in Argentina there is a law to reimburse 80% of the cost of forest plantations). Additionally, many silvopastoral designs are based on local or resilient species—like eucalyptus, acacias, or native legumes—that are easy to manage. In practice, the first results are often seen in a few months, which motivates producers to continue, as reported by coordinators of "sustainable ranching" projects (8, 19).
Success Stories and Experiences
Antioquia, Colombia: A university-government project implemented SPS on ~300 farms. It was observed that, after installing living fences and fodder shrubs, "the trees begin to provide shade to the cattle, generating a significant reduction in heat stress; the shrubs provide more vitamins... together they result in greater milk production and weight gain" (4). Participating ranchers report more abundant milk and more vigorous cattle during warm months.
Michoacán, Mexico: On dual-purpose farms under a traditional system, profitability was almost zero. By introducing high-density SPS with Leucaena and improved pastures, a case study reported that the IRR went from 0.7% (traditional) to 13.3% with silvopasture (9). Other samples in the region found IRR around 20% with SPS, compared to losses in the conventional system (20). This shows that investing in trees can transform deficit-ridden ranches into profitable businesses.
Peruvian Amazon: In Loreto and San Martín, projects with local communities integrated protein banks (leguminous shrubs) and timber trees in pastures. The results were "the recovery of degraded soils, improved meat production, and a greater carbon reserve" (21). On dairy farms in San Martín, better food quality (more protein), higher animal productivity, and environmental benefits were observed by planting eucalyptus, guaba, and legumes (22). These cases show that even on a small scale, SPS combat deforestation and improve incomes.
Other Regions: While most documented experiences come from Latin America, the principles are global. For example, in the United States, SPS applied in coniferous forests also increased wildlife diversity and protected soils from erosion (14). In Europe, similar livestock agroforestry schemes are being explored, using living hedges for shade and forage.
Conclusion
The accumulated evidence indicates that the transition to silvopastoral systems is indeed worthwhile. Compared to conventional ranching, SPS offer real increases in meat and milk production per hectare (3, 4), cost savings (fertilizers, supplements) (6), and clear improvements in animal welfare (less heat stress, better nutrition) (5). Environmentally, they mitigate the carbon footprint, recover degraded soils, and enrich local biodiversity (14, 15). The main "myths" about lower production or high costs do not hold up against the available studies (5, 6).
For ranchers and agricultural students, the recommendation is to consider SPS as a strategic medium-term investment: experience shows that initial costs are offset over time and that the diversification of products (wood, fruit, meat/milk) strengthens the business's resilience. With good technical advice and by taking advantage of subsidies or forestry incentives available in many countries, converting to silvopasture can be a profitable and sustainable path toward more productive and environmentally friendly ranching (8, 23).
References: For each statement, recent scientific studies, technical reports, and field experiences are cited (5, 9, 15, 24), which support the benefits described and debunk common myths about silvopastoral systems.
(1, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 23) dialnet.unirioja.es
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/10110959.pdf
(2, 13, 15) Evaluación del carbono acumulado en suelo en sistemas silvopastoriles del Caribe colombiano*
https://www.redalyc.org/journal/436/43663511002/html/
(3, 6, 7, 8, 24) El sistema silvopastoril en fincas ganaderas reduce los costos de producción hasta en 19%
(4) Universidad Nacional de Colombia : Sede Medellin - Sistemas silvopastoriles potencian economía de ganaderos en Antioquia
(12, 14) Silvopastoreo: Una práctica agroforestal
https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/assets/documents/agroforestrynotes/an08s01-e.pdf
(18, 21, 22) Casos de éxito de los sistemas silvopastoriles en el trópico peruano
https://www.agroperu.pe/casos-de-exito-de-los-sistemas-silvopastoriles-en-el-tropico-peruano/
(19) Silvopastoriles permiten disminuir en 19 % los costos de producción | CONtexto Ganadero
AgroPetEd
Information about animals and agricultural practices
© 2025. All rights reserved.