2026/07/01 by Ana Paula Corteze, Daniela Maria Martin, João Pedro Moro Flores +7
Agricultural and Biological Sciences · #Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems #Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems #Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
paper · doi:10.1111/gfs.70071
openalex publication_date 2026/07/01 · openalex created_date 2026/07/29 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
ABSTRACT Silvopasture systems integrate tree, forage, and livestock components, offering a sustainable intensification strategy that combines environmental and productive benefits, although shading may impose constraints on forage accumulation. This study aimed to evaluate forage accumulation, nutritive value, and beef cattle performance in pastoral and silvopasture systems, comparing tropical and subtropical environments in Brazil. A systematic review identified 45 eligible articles, which were subjected to meta‐analysis based on proportional differences and 95% confidence intervals. Forage accumulation rate was, on average, 30% lower in silvopasture than in pastoral systems ( p < 0.0001), with this reduction being 17% greater in subtropical than in tropical regions ( p < 0.0001). Crude protein concentration was 17% greater in silvopasture systems ( p < 0.0001), with increases of 1% in subtropical and 17% in tropical regions ( p < 0.01). This response may be associated with reduced accumulation of non‐structural carbohydrates under lower irradiance. Neutral detergent fibre ( p = 0.1842), acid detergent fibre ( p = 0.1742) and in vitro digestibility of dry matter ( p = 0.8721) concentrations did not differ between systems. Average daily gain of cattle was similar between pastoral and silvopasture systems ( p = 0.1000). Stocking rate was 12% lower in silvopasture systems ( p < 0.0001), resulting in a mean reduction of 14% in liveweight gain per hectare ( p < 0.0001). This reduction was markedly greater in subtropical environments (44%; p < 0.001) than in tropical ones (10%; p < 0.001). We conclude that silvopasture systems enhance crude protein concentration in forage, without compromising forage fibre or animal performance. Although reduced forage accumulation and lower stocking rate limit animal productivity per unit area, these effects may be offset by the economic returns from the tree component.