ACRE - Agricultural Conservation for Resilient Environments

Silvopasture  (NRCS #381)

Applicable Systems

About

Silvopasture, an agroforestry practice, integrates trees, forage, and livestock within one site or operation through intentional management. Silvopasture can be established by adding trees to a pasture, or by removing trees from a forest or woodlot. By implementing silvopasture, trees protect livestock from the wind and provide shade. More broadly, silvopasture benefits include improved forage quality, reduced erosion, decreased soil erosion, and improved habitat1 2. Silvopasture systems are suitable for grazing dairy and beef cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry, and promote short-term economic revenue from grazing while trees mature.

Key aspects and considerations:

  • Use intentional, intensive, interactive, and integrated management.
  • Avoid overgrazing; consider rotational grazing practices.
  • During establishment, protect trees from livestock.
  • Ensure adequate water availability.
  • Plant species suitable to the climate and site characteristics.
  • Ensure adequate grazing length and rest periods.
  • Plan for changes in canopy cover.
  • Consider equipment availability in management plans.

Benefits and Limitations

ACRE CategoryBenefitsLimitations
Soil Health
  • Improves soil quality compared to treeless pasture3.

  • Increases soil carbon compared to treeless pasture3 4.

  • Protects soil from wind and reduces erosion.

  • Possibly decreases soil carbon and increases soil compaction when converted from forestland5.

  • Requires grazing management to prevent soil degradation6.

Water Management
  • Improves infiltration and increases soil water content3 compared to treeless pasture.

  • Reduces runoff.

  • Trees require adequate and timely water during establishment.

  • Trees may compete for water if densely planted.

  • Reduces infiltration compared to ungrazed land7.

Nutrient Management
  • Reduces phosphorous and nitrate loss in comparison to open pasture due to a mix of rooting depths8.

  • Planting trees on pasture can improve nutrient cycling by adding organic matter to the system.

  • Livestock manure increases organic matter and improves nutrient cycling.

  • Requires livestock management to avoid uneven nutrient distribution.
Agricultural Production
  • Increases land use efficiency3.

  • Increases or maintains livestock daily weight gains.

  • Shade reduces heat stress in livestock.

  • Provides high value wood products.

  • Extends forage growing season.

  • Improves woodland management.

  • Limits unwanted understory growth.

  • Reduces fuel loads and wildfire risk14.

  • Trees may compete with forage for light, nutrients, and water.

  • During establishment, trees require protection from livestock and wildlife.

  • Potentially reduces total forage yield.

  • Greater management complexity.

  • Lack of regionally relevant information9.

  • If establishing silvopasture from open pasture, requires long-term land tenure and time.

Biodiversity and Wildlife
  • Increases biodiversity compared to open pasture10.

  • Trees promote wildlife habitat (microhabitats)8.

  • Provides habitat for beneficial insects.

  • Trees negatively impact certain wildlife, especially grassland birds.

  • Grazing pressure may reduce understory diversity if poorly managed.

GHG Emission
  • Incorporating trees on pasture increases carbon storage in comparison to treeless pasture11 5.

  • Compared to converting forests to cropland, converting forests to silvopasture reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Silvopasture paired with rotational grazing may improve forage quality and reduce CH4 emissions12.

  • Net changes in greenhouse gas emissions depend on whether silvopasture is created by adding trees to pasture (decrease emissions) or removing trees from forests (increase emissions).

  • Changes in total carbon storage and sequestration are inconsistent at times, and further research and analysis is needed.

Economics

Impact on Agricultural Resilience

  • Silvopasture provides shade for livestock, helping to maintain animal wellbeing and productivity as extreme heat becomes more prevalent in portions of the Midwest. Additionally, as nighttime temperatures rise and limit livestock's ability to cool down, shade and protection provided by silvopasture systems will further enhance livestock wellbeing. Silvopasture also provides wintertime benefits, as trees help buffer against wind and reduce windchill15.
  • Greater soil organic matter and resulting increases in water holding capacity may make silvopasture more resilient to drought and flooding than open pasture systems.

Regional Applicability

  • Silvopasture is predominantly practiced in the west and southeast United States11, though it remains applicable to the Midwest. In particular, the Midwest contributes substantially to U.S. livestock production, including dairy and beef cattle showcasing opportunities for silvopasture systems. According to a recent USDA survey of agroforestry producers, silvopasture was practiced by roughly 20-60% of respondents in the Midwest16. Silvopasture demonstration farms can be found in Wisconsin and Illinois through the Savanna Institute.
  • However, unmanaged grazing of woodlots historically has left some across the Midwest region skeptical of silvopasture17. Importantly, silvopasture requires intentional integration and management to avoid overgrazing, making it distinctly different than woodlot grazing. Considering projected changes in rainfall patterns and an increase in extreme heat across the Midwest, silvopasture is a regionally relevant tool to increase drought tolerance in pasture while promoting livestock wellbeing.

Case Studies

  • Deanne Boyer, the farmer and owner of Willow Run Farmstead LLC in Pennsylvania describes the decision to implement silvopasture: "The animal wellness [component of agroforestry] really does impact my bottom line in a lot of ways. A lot of my silvopasture choices are for animal wellness, which then creates better product, which then helps me financially."
  • In Indiana, Nate and Liz Brownlee of Nightfall Farm converted their pasture to silvopasture after experiencing dangerous temperatures. A handful of years later, Nate reflects, "I can't imagine working with animals on a pasture that didn't have trees, now."
  • In Virginia, a farmer decided to implement silvopasture after witnessing his cattle crowd around a few individual trees in the pasture. While relatively satisfied with silvopasture performance on his farm, the farmer emphasized his desire for more research on the best management practices for silvopasture systems.
  • In Goleta, California, Guner and Heidi Tautrim decided to add trees to their pasture after recognizing the hurdles of trying to raise pigs and chickens in a drought prone region. During establishment, they faced challenges with protecting trees from animals, establishing water infrastructure, and limited technical assistance for mediterranean environments. However, they look forward to the added shade and shelter, and to diversifying their revenue streams.

Resources

References

  1. USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Standard Document, Silvopasture, Code 381. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Silvopasture-381-CPS-May-2016.pdf
  2. USDA-NRCS (2016). Conservation Practice Overview, Silvopasture, Code 381. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Silvopasture-381-Overview-May-2016.pdf
  3. Amorim, H. C., Ashworth, A. J., O'Brien, P. L., et al. (2023). Temperate silvopastures provide greater ecosystem services than conventional pasture systems. Scientific Reports, 13, 18658. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45960-0
  4. Orefice, J., Smith, M. M., Weinberg, W. C., & Batcheler, M. (2025). Carbon dynamics of silvopasture systems in the Northeastern United States. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 6995.
  5. De Stefano, A., & Jacobson, M. G. (2018). Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 92(2), 285-299.
  6. Mayerfeld, D., Keeley, K. O., Rickenbach, M., Rissman, A., & Ventura, S. J. (2023). Evolving conceptions of silvopasture among farmers and natural resource professionals in Wisconsin, USA. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 983376. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.983376
  7. Mayerfeld, D., Kruger, E., Gildersleeve, R., & Rickenbach, M. (2022). Impacts of different grazing approaches on woodland ecosystem properties. Agroforestry Systems, 96(3), 527-540.
  8. Pent, G. J., & Fike, J. H. (2021). Enhanced ecosystem services provided by silvopastures. In Agroforestry and Ecosystem Services (pp. 141-171). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  9. Smith, M. M., Bentrup, G., Kellerman, T., MacFarland, K., Straight, R., Ameyaw, L., & Stein, S. (2022). Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 326, 107818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818
  10. Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malézieux, E., Seufert, V., & Makowski, D. (2021). Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Global Change Biology, 27(19), 4697-4710.
  11. Udawatta, R. P., & Jose, S. (2012). Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agroforestry Systems, 86, 225-242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9561-1
  12. Lawrence, N., Ahamed, A., Conway, A., Covey, K., Chenyang, L., Machado, S., Wardropper, C., Stutzman, E., & Mize, C. (2025). Agroforestry and Climate Outcomes: Literature Review and Technical Guidance. Technical Advisory Network for Climate Smart Agricultural Practices. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15776654
  13. Prieto, J., Lin, Z., Reed, K. F., Wolf, C. A., & Ortiz-Bobea, A. (2026). Milk composition responses amplify economic damages from heat stress. Environmental Research Letters.
  14. Batcheler, M., Smith, M. M., Swanson, M. E., Ostrom, M., & Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2024). Assessing silvopasture management as a strategy to reduce fuel loads and mitigate wildfire risk. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5954.
  15. Schoeneberger, M. M., & Bentrup, G. (2017). Agroforestry: enhancing resiliency in US agricultural landscapes under changing conditions. Gen. Tech. Report WO-96. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 96.
  16. Smith, M. M., Floress, K., Batcheler, M., Bentrup, G., MacFarland, K., Kellerman, T., & Ameyaw, L. (2026). Silvopasture in the United States: Results from the National Agroforestry Producer Survey. Agroforestry Systems, 100(6), 142.
  17. Mayerfeld, D., Rickenbach, M., & Rissman, A. (2016). Overcoming history: attitudes of resource professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in southwest Wisconsin. Agroforestry Systems, 90, 723-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9954-7
Silvopasture photo 1

Photo 1: Cattle graze in a silvopasture system.

Photo courtesy of USDA-FS National Agroforestry Center (CC BY 2.0).

Silvopasture photo 2

Photo 2: Silvopasture system with slash pine plantation and goats used to manage the understory.

Photo courtesy by USDA National Agroforestry Center.


  • Purdue University
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  • Iowa State University
  • Midwest Regional Climate Center
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture

This research is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant 2023-67023-39246 from the USDA National Institute of Food & Agriculture.

Interested in participating in the project, or have questions?    Contact us!