Livestock grazing

Authors: Véronique CHAUVIN and Aloïs ARTAUX

Peatlands are not the landscape types that first come to mind when we think of extensive grazing. Peatlands have been used for extensive grazing for several millennia. The grazing intensity was determined by the quality of the peatland and its location. Pastoral practices have evolved since then and are still evolving thanks to the improvement of naturalistic, zootechnical or other knowledge. Nowadays, pastoralism may represent a perpetuation of more or less ancient traditions of economic valorisation of wetlands by farms. It can also represent a management method that is assumed and thought out with the aim of preserving certain aspects of the natural heritage of peaty environments.

Depending on the way it is implemented and managed, grazing can be an essential tool for maintaining or even enhancing peatland biodiversity and optimising carbon storage.

Please use the content below to navigate through the site:

Environmental Considerations

Feasibility

Marketing Opportunities

Recommendations

Environmental Considerations

Farmers, especially extensive livestock farmers, are the managers of many marshland wetlands and are responsible for preserving the biodiversity and functionality of these areas.

Maintaining extensive livestock farming is therefore a key territorial and environmental issue.

In decline over the last 20 years, livestock farming remains one of the main production activities of these areas while maintaining marshland meadows. The major challenge is to balance the preservation of peatlands in their ecological functioning, especially with regards to climate change mitigation, and the protection of livelihoods for farmers and landowners.

In France, the cultivation and turning over of peatland is prohibited by law (law on water and landscape), so that mowing and grazing are the main management methods for these sensitive environments. Peat bogs are recognised for their high environmental value and most of them are classified under the "Birds" and "Habitats" directives of Natura 2000. Farming practices encouraged by agri-environmental and climatic measures (deferred mowing, reduction of inputs, management of water levels, etc.) allow the maintenance of specific habitats. They encourage the expression of a diversified flora and the reception of birds (waders, waders, etc.), amphibians and mammals attached to these environments and their extensive management.

In a study of soil-vegetation relationships, the examination of humus forms carried out in the Haut-Doubs and the Swiss Jura massif by Rion (2015) in his thesis "highlighted an interesting aspect: the importance of livestock on the intensity of waterlogging, and therefore on the determinism and mosaic distribution of vegetation and soil/humus forms, and the limitation of the development of woody or other species that threaten the intensity of waterlogging, as well as the contribution of light reaching the soil or carbon evaporation. This highlights the fact that well-managed grazing is necessary for the conservation, diversity and distribution of the environments in the sites studied and their functioning, including carbon storage.

Feasibility

One option to obtain food from peatlands is through the use of livestock, when farmers introduce or maintain herds of grazing cattle or sheep on the land if the wet conditions permit. This business model is widely applied on upland bogs of Ireland and the United Kingdom, where traditional sheep grazing has formed parts of people's livelihoods for centuries. But also in lowland fen areas, livestock that are adapted to the conditions of rewetted peatlands are an option for obtaining value from the land. This business model is also suitable for peatlands that are currently heavily drained and/or for land that farmers or other stakeholders don’t want to take out of production due to flooding, where a big step towards CO2 reduction is possible by raising ground water levels. However, livestock activities on rewetted peatlands must be carefully designed and balanced in order to protect the wet status and intact vegetation of the land in order to maintain the land’s function as a carbon sink.

Charolais cattle in the marshes of Lake Grand-Lieu in Loire-Atlantique, France (Photo credits: AGRO’bjectif)

STOCKING DENSITY

Livestock density is generally expressed in livestock units per hectare (LU/ha). A low livestock density is considered to be between 0.6 LU/ha and 1 LU/ha. However, even lower livestock densities are common in extensive livestock production. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the LU is a theoretical indicator mainly intended for livestock rearing on forage areas considered to be homogeneous. Peat bogs can be very heterogeneous environments where it will be necessary to adapt the loading according to the more or less fragile sectors. Loading must also be adapted over time and according to feedback. The important thing is to find a balance between grazing pressure and the degree of openness of the environment.

1. Livestock grazing decision framework

A decision-making framework is used to identify a grazing option for livestock that will (1) maintain the vegetation condition of high quality wetlands, (2) improve the vegetation condition of lower quality wetlands, or (3) manage the vegetation condition for important wildlife.

The framework focuses on vegetation condition because: vegetation reflects direct impacts of livestock through trampling, grazing and seed dispersal of invasive plants, as well as changes in water quality, soil disturbance (soil uprooting and compaction) and potential changes in water regime; and vegetation closure by native or exotic plants, and invasion by competitive introduced grasses are the only two impacts for which grazing can be used to protect or enhance wetland values. All these impacts affect the soil's capacity to store carbon and especially to retain it.

2. Best livestock grazing practice guidelines

Advice on best practices to help develop a controlled livestock grazing management plan is needed. This advice covers timing and duration of livestock access, type of livestock, stocking rates and supplementary feeding.

3. Monitoring and evaluation recommendations to support adaptive management

Recommendations for the development of a monitoring and evaluation plan to support adaptive management are needed in the long term. It is recommended that an adaptive management plan be adopted at all sites where grazing management for livestock is implemented. This requires the development of a monitoring and evaluation programme to determine whether the site's vegetation management objectives are being met and whether any impacts are being adequately controlled. Data collected through monitoring should be evaluated and used to revise the livestock management plan.

ROTATIONAL GRAZING

In the context of peatland management, the establishment of rotational grazing is possible, especially when the areas are frequently flooded. Rotational grazing can comprise, for example, a mown part and a resting part. Rotational grazing also makes it possible to break up the grazing time of the herd in order to be able to maintain a sufficient feed resource in the long term. Finally, it makes it possible to better monitor grazing pressure and thus to correct it if necessary.

Farming practices correspond to grazing and mowing activities without the use of inputs. The plots of land are farmed in the traditional way, which allows a socio-economic activity to be maintained and an exceptional natural environment to be maintained.

For mowing, some plots produce quality hay, while others are used for bedding. Grazing begins at the beginning of June for a period of 4 to 5 months, depending on the water level.

Charolais cattle in the marshes of Lake Grand-Lieu in Loire-Atlantique, France
(Photo credits: AGRO’bjectif)

Marketing Opportunities

For farmers keeping livestock, the production of animal products such as meat and milk, as well as animal feed such as hay or silage are possible ways of creating value from the land. The conditions of the (rewetted) peatland itself will thereby put greater constraints on livestock farming than is common for other soils. Practically, this will be expressed in the periodical or permanent inability to keep animals on parts or all of the land, a reduction in stocking densities and/or difficulties and losses with regard to fodder production. While the sale of animal products from peatlands will likely follow established marketing channels, the efficiencies of including these into overall farm output will likely be lower and may pose a threat to farm incomes. Creating new marketing channels e.g. through establishing direct relationships with end consumers can be an option to avoid this by communicating differences in land management and related possible increases in prices. However, this again may be linked to costs and further impracticalities which can be very specific. Rewarding farmers for the environmental benefits from the management of wet peatlands through subsidies or by the sale of carbon or blue credits is another option for circumventing potential decreases in farm income, but these are not yet established.

Click here to learn more about results based payments for peatlands and here for Carbon or blue credits.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The big advantage of this business model is that for farmers it is not necessary to adapt or change to a different type of agriculture as they will still be able to produce beef, milk and fodder such as hay on their land – provided this is the type of agricultural activity they are used to. At the same time, this management will probably not require the use of much different machinery either, thus will not require much additional financial investment.

Even if the use of marshes is not always easy (watering management, difficult containment of animals, invasive plants, distance from certain plots), these areas have definite advantages for the farm. With 10 months of pasture, the meat herds make the most of the wetlands. The leitmotif in this operation is, however, "to always try to do better", including to enhance these areas. They thus find solutions or carry out work to overcome each drawback. The wetlands are also complementary to other surfaces, they allow the lengthening of the grazing period, thanks to the regrowth capacities and the good maintenance of the grass in these zones, and provide a very useful safety in case of dry years, thus helping to maintain the fodder autonomy of the farm.

The ranchers are also looking to the future, "with the climate change looming, maybe we can do better than others and maintain our level of production."

The average GOS (Gross Operating Surplus) reduced to the farmer's labor unit, observed for 2014 and 2015, are globally higher than local references: + € 5,200 for dairy to + € 23,800 for nursing mothers. Behind these averages inevitably hide differences with notably lower results, with some farms even showing negative disposable income (less than 1% of the sample - APEX study 2015-2018 - sample of 50 farmers). The share of aid is slightly higher than local references; all farms receive aid from agri-environmental measures.

It is difficult to make very extensive grazing coincide with economic profitability. This is why this type of grazing is more a matter of diversification of the agricultural enterprise's activities and generates little economic added value. The animals alternate between uplands in winter and peat bogs in summer, which optimises fodder autonomy and secures the farming system.

Finally, as a management tool, extensive grazing is a low-cost solution compared to other systems (mowing, trimming, scraping, etc.). As an example, the cost of extensive grazing throughout the year, including additional fodder during the winter, amounts to approximately 16,400 euros for 12 ha. For the same area that can be mechanised, the price of mowing by a company is two to three times higher (Grossi and Pasquier 2014). In addition, the larger the area, the more economically interesting it is to use the pasture for environmental maintenance (Crassous and Karas 2007).

Recommendations

It is understood that for livestock farmers, grazing is above all a means of production subject to strong professional imperatives; agricultural producers must make a living from their livestock. Current economic models are based on large herds with animals selected primarily for the needs of agricultural production (milk, meat, etc.). Generally speaking, this type of herd is not well suited to grazing on peat bogs because of its lack of hardiness.

CHOICE OF ANIMALS

The realities of traditional grazing, such as the technical specificity of each farmer, the uniqueness of each herd or the constraints linked to climatic hazards, are all elements that are sometimes difficult to reconcile with management specifications. Similarly, the constraints imposed by current production systems do not always allow farmers to fully consider the functioning of the environment, the dynamics of the vegetation or even the behavioural plasticity of the herd.

When setting up management grazing in peaty environments, the question of the choice of species and breed therefore appears to be of prime importance. It is advisable to give preference to animals with a certain hardiness, capable of withstanding difficult conditions such as heavy soil congestion, poor bearing capacity, or the presence of woody plants or plants with a fairly low fodder value and variable palatability such as reeds. Thus, extensive grazing can be carried out not only with cattle but also with sheep or horses. Nevertheless, each species has its own specificities and the choice of species and breed is one of the important aspects in meeting the objectives of environmental management under the above-mentioned conditions. In spite of their great hardiness, the use of donkeys is not recommended for the management of peat bogs. Indeed, for these species, vegetation that is too humid and low in minerals should be avoided... However, their high sorting capacity in terms of food resources makes it perhaps interesting to use them in mixed grazing over short periods.

Finally, it is advisable to choose breeds adapted to each type of environment and requiring little veterinary care. The choice of a regional breed may be relevant as it usually has characteristics that are appropriate to local conditions.

In France, the breeds used are highlands, aurochs, Breton pie-black, cows from Nantes, etc. For horses, honik polski, Camargues horses, pottocks or even fjords and shetlands are preferred. As far as sheep are concerned, the Suffolk, Solognot, Soay or Roux ardennais breeds are sometimes used in France. These examples are not exhaustive.

Charolais cattle in the marshes of Lake Grand-Lieu in Loire-Atlantique, France (Photo credits: AGRO’bjectif)

CONSTRAINTS

The farmer must know and be aware of the main objective of the management and that the actions that will be implemented are aimed at achieving this objective. It is also often difficult for farmers in peaty areas to achieve significant economic development of the land, given the rather strong existing constraints and the lack of available alternative land:

Surface of wet meadows often low (mostly parks from 2 to 6 ha)
Low to medium economic valuation (management extensive in wetlands): suitable for the breeding of heifers, beef cattle, dry cows, leisure and draught horses ...
Rotational grazing
Nature of the land: wet meadows (peat bogs), sometimes difficult to access at certain times of the year, with variations in water levels.
Grazing period defined according to water levels ideally to own docile, hardy animals, opportunists, curious and/or accustomed to consuming the food resource produced naturally by the site without any external supply of food supplements other than minerals.
Constraints of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) when the farmer subscribes to a MAEc

If there is no means to control water levels on the sites, land might get too wet for cattle to be kept on it or harvesting of grass will be impossible. At the same time, it is important to consider whether water levels are sufficient in order to reduce CO2 emissions and if the land needs fertilisation risking to compromise surface water quality. By identifying the maximum water levels allowing for cattle breeding and hay production as well as the required water levels for CO2 reduction, these considerations could be effectively managed. Yet, this requires (scientific) support for farmers and regular monitoring of sites and water levels and thus more work by farmers. Depending on how much additional work this will be but also on the additional ecosystem services that are provided, the question arises how farmers can be compensated.

SUCCESS FACTORS

Training

Practices, knowledge and know-how in peat marsh agriculture are tending to disappear. It can be seen that little training exists for young farmers who would like to set up there. Its environment is not very attractive and remains synonymous with strong constraints. A system of mentoring between farmers and young people could help to maintain this situation.

Advisors’ specialisation

The overall study of a farm is often prohibited because of the "specialisation" of the advisors. Indeed, many advisors may advise the same farmer without sharing their knowledge. In this process, it is not the crops or livestock that are forgotten, but the practices specific to peat marshes. On the contrary, the transversality and complementarity of the advisors could reverse the loss of activities on these marshes.

Scientific results can help understand grazing in rotation complexity. Yet, they need to be popularised to advisors who will transmit knowledge to farmers and students. Nevertheless, the ratio between the number of advisors and the number of farmers is very low.

Stable funding

Agri-environmental measures that could contribute to making farmers actors in landscape maintenance and carbon storage are often inconsistent and provide little incentive for extensive grazing, particularly in wetlands. This is increased by the additional costs linked to invasive species, the distance of farms from the grazed area, access…

Pride of peat marsh agriculture

Farmers' pride in their peat swamp systems is one of the most wonderful levers for development. Exchange groups exist to progress in practices and make this agriculture of today evolve. They are the best ambassadors of these systems and the basis for training young people.

References

APEX (2015-2018): améliorer les performances des élevages extensifs dans les marais et les vallées alluviales, Chambre d’Agriculture des Pays de Loire - programme CAS DAR 2014-2018, p.42 + annexes

Crassous C., Karas F. (2007). Guide de gestion des tourbières et marais alcalins des vallées alluviales de France septentrionale. Besançon, France : Fédération des Conservatoires des espaces naturels, Pôle-relais tourbières, 203 p.

Grossi J.L., Pasquier G. (2014). Le pâturage comme gestion. In : Marais de Charvas, 20 ans de gestion conservatoire. Saint-Egrève, France : Conservatoire d’espaces naturels d’Isère - Avenir

Rion V. (2015). Bas-marais et prairies humides du Haut-Jura : relations sol-végétation et évolution. Thèse Université de Neuchâtel, 354 p. + annexes

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

Agreil C., Greff N. (2008). Des troupeaux et de hommes en espaces naturels, une approche dynamique de la gestion pastorale. Vourles, France : Conservatoire Rhône-Alpes des espaces naturels, p. 87 + annexes p.67

Aydabirian V. (2004). La gestion de territoires à forts enjeux environnementaux par les exploitants agricoles (Mémoire de fin d’étude). Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse, Toulouse, France

Bazin P. (2012). L’élevage en zone humide. Zones Humides Infos (75-76), pp. 4-11

Centre d’activités régionales pour la consommation et la production durables (SCP/RAC) (s. d.). Deux types de gestion aux caractéristiques presque opposées [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site du Regional Activity Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production : http://www.cprac.org/consumpediamed/sites/all/documents/link-int-ext_FR.htm

Cholet J., Magnon G. (2010). Tourbières des montagnes françaises, nouveaux éléments de connaissance, de réflexion et de gestion. Besançon, France : Fédération des Conservatoires d’espaces naturels, Pôle-relais tourbières, p 188.

FCEN-Pôle-relais tourbières.(2017). « Pâturage et biodiversité des tourbières de Franche-Comté ; entre tradition et perspectives », p.36

Forum des Marais Atlantiques ; Pôle-relais Marais Atlantiques, Manche et mer du Nord. Restauration & réhabilitation des Zones humides, version 2016. Pôles-relais zones humides. 2016, p.41.

Forum des Marais Atlantiques, 2015. Mallette d’indicateurs de travaux et de suivis en zones humides. Agence de l’eau Loire-Bretagne et Conseil régional des Pays de la Loire,p. 189.

Gabaldon A. (2016). Influence du pâturage comme outil de gestion des tourbières de France (Essai de maîtrise). Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, p.101

Gabaldon A., Muller F. (2016). Compte-rendu de l’atelier de réflexion sur la valorisation des tourbières de Franche-Comté par le pâturage. Besançon : Fédération des Conservatoires d’espaces naturels / Pôle-relais tourbières, p.12

Joseph J.L. (2012). L’élevage en zone humide. Zones Humides Infos (75-76), pp. 1-2 54

Pasquier G., Suchet P., Grossi J.L., Marciau R., Veillet B. (2010). Le pâturage en zone humide : 15 ans de gestion conservatoire. Saint-Egrève, France : Avenir – Conservatoire des espaces naturels de l’Isère, p.43

Lumaret J.P. (2003). Usage de produits vétérinaires, gare à la pollution chimique. In : Le pâturage, les bons choix… Espaces naturels (1), p. 22

Le Neveu C., Lecomte T. (1990). Gestion des zones humides et pastoralisme. Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement ; ATEN Montpellier, p.113

Philippot M. (2013). La définition du pâturage extensif [en ligne]. Disponible sur le site Agriculture et Gestion d’Espaces Naturels,: http://www.paturage.be/paturage. P.68

Poux X., Deniaud C., Allard M. (2012). L’élevage en zone humide. Zones Humides Infos (75-76), pp. 4-11

Testimonies of farmers

Restoring peatlands: the agro-ecological transition on a British farm

Jimmy Stobart talks about his farm's transition from an intensive system to rotational grazing to improve soil quality. He talks about his desire to investigate the potential for carbon and water storage on his farm.

Restoring Peatlands: reciprocal benefits of carbon and agriculture in the Grand-Lieu marsh.

Véronique Chauvin and Jean-Luc Gayet, advisors to the Pays de la Loire Chamber of Agriculture, present the work carried out as part of the Carbon Connects project in the Grand-Lieu wetlands, to assess the potential for carbon storage in the soil. Two farmers operating in the marshes spoke about the specific features of wetland agriculture and the environmental services it provides to maintain these fragile environments.

Restoring peatlands: testimony of a farmer from the Grand-Lieu Lake area on extensive grazing in a peatland area #1

Michel Coudriau, a Charolais cow farmer on the Grand-Lieu marsh, talks about the conditions necessary to maintain livestock farming in an area now threatened by the abandonment of agriculture and the proliferation of invasive species such as primrose willow and the Louisiana crayfish.

Testimony of a farmer from the Grand-Lieu Lake on extensive grazing in peatland areas #2

Erwan Briant, an organic dairy farmer on the Grand-Lieu marsh, talks about how to add value to agricultural products from wetlands through the development of short circuits, as a solution to maintaining livestock farming in areas that are more difficult to exploit, where yields are lower than in traditional agricultural models.

Restoring peatlands: a dairy farmer's testimony on his low-carbon practices on his farm in the Cotentin Bessin Regional Parc in Normandy marshes.

François Rihouet talks about his low-carbon practices and the specificities of farming in the Cotentin-Bessin marshes park. He testifies about the importance of agriculture both as a heritage and as a guarantor of the maintenance of the unique landscapes of this region.

Restoring Peatlands: concerted management of water levels in the Cotentin-Bessin marshes

Report in the Cotentin marshes with a farmer, a representative of the water management syndicate and an expert from the regional nature park, who talk to us about the concerted management of water levels to preserve the peat bogs and maintain agriculture.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse

Livestock grazing

Environmental Considerations

Feasibility

Marketing Opportunities

Recommendations

Further reading

References

Testimonies of farmers