Effect of livestock breed and grazing intensity on grazing ... - CiteSeerX

Effect of livestock breed and grazing intensity on grazing systems: 5. Management and policy implications J. Mills*, A. J. Rook†, B. Dumont‡, J. Isselstein§, M. Scimone– and M. F. Wallis De Vries** *Countryside and Community Research Institute, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK, †Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon, UK, ‡Unite de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Institiut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Theix, Saint-Genes-Champanelle, France, §Department of Crop Science, Georg-August-Universitaet, Go¨ttingen, Germany, –ERSA Friuli Venezia Giulia, Pordenone, Italy, and **De Vlinderstichting ⁄ Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Summary This paper explores the management and policy implications of research findings investigating the use of grazing intensity and traditional breeds to achieve biodiversity outcomes on grasslands in four countries of Europe. An economic analysis, based on these research findings, indicated that financial assistance and ⁄ or premium prices are required to achieve sustainable grazing systems with a high biodiversity. The research findings suggested that existing agri-environment scheme prescriptions based only on blanket stocking rates are too crude to increase plant diversity, lacking consideration of initial site conditions. Conversely, some invertebrates seem to rapidly benefit from lenient stocking, highlighting the importance of clear goals for agri-environment schemes. Recommendations for an appropriate support package to deliver grazing systems with high biodiversity are presented. Keywords: biodiversity, grazing intensity, livestock breeds, agri-environment schemes.

Introduction The European Community has a policy to halt the decline in biodiversity. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the European Council meeting in Go¨teborg in 2001 adopted a target of halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010, as set out in the sixth Environmental Action Programme (European Commission, 2001). Biodiversity has become increasingly recognized as a public good valued by member states of the European

Correspondence to: Jane Mills, Countryside and Community Research Unit, University of Gloucestershire, Dunholme Villa, The Park, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 2RH, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received 7 February 2007; revised 17 April 2007

Union (EU) and, as such, targeted intervention to achieve increased biodiversity in productive agricultural management systems may be justified. One response to concerns over biodiversity loss and environmental damage, resulting from agricultural change in Europe, has been the introduction of agrienvironment schemes, in which farmers are paid to modify their farming practices to provide environmental benefits. Member States and those regions with responsibilities for the implementation of the Agrienvironment Regulation have varied considerably in their delivery of these schemes with a wide variety of measures and payments. Across the EU, the proportion of total area of agricultural land enrolled in agrienvironment measures has increased from 0Æ15 in 1998 to 0Æ27 in 2001. This paper is specifically concerned with those measures aimed at reducing stocking rates on grassland and introducing traditional breeds. Measures aimed at reducing stocking rates were undertaken in ten of the fourteen EU countries studied by Plankl (2001), while those aimed at introducing rare breeds were undertaken in nine of these countries. In some areas of Europe, the management of grassland has become, or is becoming, increasingly intensified (Goss et al., 1998) with habitats becoming more nutrient-rich and homogenous, resulting in reduced species diversity and uniformity of structure within and between fields (Bobbink, 1991; Willems et al., 1993; Gough et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000). Conversely, grasslands with high biodiversity are increasingly under threat from extreme extensification or conversion to other uses (Baldock et al., 1996; Hellstrom et al., 2003; Pavlu˚ et al., 2005) as mounting economic pressures, particularly in marginal areas, have meant that their management is no longer economically sustainable. Isselststein et al. (2007), Dumont et al. (2007), Scimone et al. (2007) and Wallis De Vries et al. (2007) examined the effects of grazing intensity (stocking rate) and livestock breed on mesotrophic and semi-natural grasslands at four sites in the UK, Germany, France and

429 2007 The Authors Journal Compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 429–436

Karst sheep Rotational grazing system. Spring lambing, lambs sold for slaughter at 70 d

*1 LU ¼ 600 kg live weight.

Salers heifers Extensive system with heifers purchased in autumn, overwintered and finished in the autumn Devon steers Steers purchased in February or March at 12 months of age and sold in autumn

German Angus steers Intensive systems with steers purchased in spring, overwintered and finished at 22 months of age

Pordenone 400 m Mesotrophic grassland 1Æ1 0Æ7 Finnish sheep Auvergne 1100 m Semi-natural upland grassland 1Æ4 1Æ0 Charolais heifers

Solling Uplands 200 m Mesotrophic grassland 2Æ4 1Æ4 Simmental steers

Italy Germany

North Devon 100 m Mesotrophic grassland 2Æ1 1Æ3 Charolais · Friesian steers

Table 2 presents the partial enterprise budgets associated with each experimental treatment. It shows the financial output, variable costs, gross margins, fixed

Location Altitude Initial conditions Moderate stocking rates (LU* ha)1) Low stocking rates (LU ha)1) Commercial breeds (treatments MC and LC) Traditional breeds (treatment LT) Livestock grazing system

Results

France

The four enterprise systems considered are described in Table 1. The analysis of the financial and economic performance of each livestock enterprise was assessed using economics of farm production based on the theory of management by objectives that aims at maximizing financial profit subject to relevant constraints and has been the traditional theoretical approach to commercial farm management (Nix, 1979). The analysis followed a common format. Enterprise budgets were compiled for each of the three experimental treatments operating at the four sites, showing the changes in average output and expenditure for each enterprise, without changing the predominant farming system. These data provided the gross margin for each enterprise and also for partial fixed costs. It is often difficult to allocate fixed costs to individual enterprises as they are usually shared by more than one enterprise (Nix, 2004). However, because of the way the data on the experimental sites were collected, the more easily allocated fixed costs, such as labour requirements and machinery operating costs, could be directly attributed to the individual enterprises to arrive at a net margin per enterprise. This technique has also been adopted in a number of studies investigating the economics of organic farming (Cormack and Elliot, 1994; Leake, 1999; HDRA, 2000). Over a 3-year period (2002–2004), data on outputs, which included livestock sales (live weight and price per unit live weight), and inputs, such as live weight of livestock purchases and price per unit live weight; concentrates; veterinary services and medicines; and forage and fodder costs, were collected. The data were entered into Excel spreadsheets and averaged over 3 years to provide an average net margin for each treatment. Standard deviations were obtained using the statistical function in Excel.

UK

Methods

Country

Italy. Each site was subjected to three grazing management treatments: moderate stocking using a commercial breed (MC); lenient stocking using a commercial breed (LC); and lenient stocking using a traditional breed (LT). To link these experimental studies to the practicalities of farming, an economic analysis was undertaken to estimate the financial feasibility of adopting reduced stocking rates and traditional breeds.

Table 1 Main characteristics of grazing systems for treatments with a moderate stocking rate and commercial breeds (MC), a low stocking rate and a commercial breed (LC) and a low stocking rate with a traditional breed (LT) in four regions of Europe.

430 J. Mills et al.

2007 The Authors Journal Compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 429–436

Biodiversity and production in grazing systems 431

Table 2 Mean net margins (with standard deviation in parentheses) for three treatments in four European regions. Treatments (€ ha)1) MC UK – beef system* Output 560 (67) Variable cost 181 (3) Gross margin 379 (68) Partial fixed costs† 291 (4) Net margin 88 (69) Net margin )313 (81) excluding subsidies France – extensive beef system Output 1030 (56) Variable cost 191 (69) Gross margin 839 (99) Partial fixed costs 520 (0) Net margin 319 (99) Net margin 47 (99) excluding subsidies Germany – intensive beef system Output 2147 (514) Variable cost 465 (155) Gross margin 1683 (639) Partial fixed costs 639 (137) Net margin 1044 (681) Net margin )538 (786) excluding subsidies Italy – sheep system Output 1344 (448) Variable costs 878 (170) Gross margin 466 (319) Partial fixed costs 893 (68) Net margin )427 (289) Net margin )689 (289) excluding subsidies

LC

LT

452 164 289 266 23 )312

(30) (1) (31) (2) (31) (42)

340 158 182 257 )75 )389

743 137 607 373 234 39

(16) (49) (63) (0) (63) (63)

686 121 565 373 192 )3

(320) (3) (322) (5) (325) (315)

(21) (44) (52) (0) (52) (52)

1327 262 1064 326 738 )271

(618) 1139 (303) (46) 275 (59) (616) 864 (301) (100) 354 (88) (560) 510 (250) (348) )591 (239)

692 503 189 614 )425 )582

(284) 348 (314) (90) 290 (81) (232) 58 (274) (133) 562 (108) (99) )505 (174) (99) )662 (174)

MC, a moderate stocking rate and commercial breed; LC, a low stocking rate and a commercial breed; LT, a low stocking rate with a traditional breed. *See Table 1 for description of systems. †Partial fixed costs include direct labour and machinery operating costs but exclude capital expenses, rents and other overhead charges.

costs and net margin per hectare accruing to farmers for each treatment. Table 2 confirms the financial profitability of treatment MC, producing the highest net margins when compared with treatments LC and LT. The variable costs, such as fertilizer and concentrate costs, and labour and machinery costs are higher for treatment MC compared with treatments LC and LT.

These are compensated for by the higher output per hectare because of higher stocking rates. In the second year of the studies (2003), three sites were affected by summer drought. The impact of this was an increase in purchased fodder with a subsequent increase in variable costs. However, these increases in variable costs do not appear to seriously affect net margin per hectare. There are substantial reductions in net margin for treatments LC and LT relative to treatment MC. Net margins are reduced by between 0Æ29 and 0Æ74 on treatment LC, and by between 0Æ39 and 1Æ85 on treatment LT for beef systems. Thus, the returns from treatment LT compared with those from treatment LC were marginally lower, despite lower variable costs. This was mainly because of lower live weights at sale. Studies suggest that, in some circumstances the cost of using traditional breeds may be offset by the ability to command a premium price for products (Kuit and Van der Meulen, 1997; Rosa and Mancini, 1997), as consumers perceive that they are of superior quality. A premium price was not achieved for any of the systems on treatment LT. This may, in part, have been due to a lack of marketing effort. An additional sensitivity analysis to establish the effects on net margins of a 0Æ10 increase in the price of liveweight sales for traditional breeds revealed an increase in net margins of €29 ha)1 for the sheep system and between €112 ha)1 and €155 ha)1 for the beef systems in treatment LT. This increase, however, was still not enough in most cases to produce higher net margins than for systems in treatment MC. In the absence of any payment of subsidies per livestock unit, Table 2 shows that most enterprises demonstrate negative net margins per hectare, suggesting that, if the value of these subsidies is removed, the returns from livestock production do not cover the costs. The UK enterprise was a low-cost system producing store cattle to be finished elsewhere, whereas the German enterprise was a high-cost system. Consequently, the German system experienced much greater losses in net margins per hectare. All treatments in the French system were more extensive compared with the UK and German systems. With lower livestock units per hectare, the exclusion of subsidy payments per livestock unit has less impact on net margins per hectare. Table 2 also shows that the lower the stocking rates are, the less are the economic losses. Indeed, some systems with low stocking rates showed higher net margins relative to the moderate stocking rate systems. This suggests that the decoupling of subsidies from livestock will reduce the differences in net margins per hectare between the moderate and lenient stocking systems where this is introduced. To date, among the four study countries, the UK and Germany have


432 J. Mills et al.

introduced full decoupling of livestock subsidies, while in France and Italy they remain largely coupled to production. The values for gross and net margin per hectare in Table 2 are also affected by other factors, such as market price, especially with regard to winter fattening and rearing systems. Small variations in the market margin per head (i.e. the difference between the purchase price per kilogram paid and the price per kilogram obtained for the finished animal) can cause wide variations in the margins per hectare, as reflected in some of the standard deviations reported.

Discussion Management and policy implications – effect of grazing intensity Results of the economic analysis of the enterprises operating in the experimental studies indicate that low grazing intensity produces lower returns than moderate grazing intensity. Moreover, in the absence of subsidies, net margins were mainly negative, highlighting the dependency of these types of production systems on financial support for their viability in Europe. This would suggest a need for some form of support from society for these production systems either by a direct subsidy and ⁄ or by buying a product at a higher price. Farmers could seek to recover the costs of extensification by using the products of such systems as a marketing tool for farm products. As the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming (2002) in the UK argued ‘farmers need to see the environment and their responsibilities as land managers not as a threat but a business opportunity’. ‘Good environmental management’ can enable the promotion of local or farm brands with a high-quality image, thereby attracting a premium price. However, the extent to which such environmental farm products can cover the costs of extensification is debatable and requires further research. While the study highlights the need for continued financial support through the EU’s agri-environment schemes, the results of the experimental studies also indicate possible changes to the way these schemes are implemented to enhance the achievement of biodiversity goals. Most of these schemes are based on specifying a maximum stocking rate. However, a blanket reduction in stocking rate for biodiversity benefits may be too blunt an instrument for grassland management. Among the four sites investigated, the two more diverse sites showed no development in the number of species and their relative dominance during the 3 years of lenient grazing, whereas the two mesotrophic grasslands showed greater changes (Scimone et al., 2007). In

the long term, increases in plant biodiversity may be constrained by the loss of the seedbank in the soil and the absence of surrounding undisturbed habitats, from which new plant species could colonize (Bakker and Berendse, 1999; Smith et al., 2002). These findings suggest that agri-environment schemes, rather than introducing blanket reductions in stocking rates, should target management guidelines according to initial site conditions. Sites with high initial nutrient levels may lead to the dominance of more competitive species and the disappearance of patches under lower grazing intensities, as was observed in the UK and German sites. This shift in dominance may result in species loss if low stocking intensities are continued with. This effect has also been observed in other recent experiments (see Tallowin et al., 2005). Similarly, sites that are speciesrich will require different levels of grazing intensity than those that are species-poor. Hence, schemes for increasing biodiversity in grasslands need to make an initial assessment of sward structure and composition and soil nutrient levels. Some (Diack et al., 2000; Rook and Tallowin, 2003) argue that, instead of focusing on ad hoc measures such as stocking rates, the policy for agri-environment measures should move towards more sward-based management guidelines, such as sward height or distributions of sward height. Sward structure is a useful indicator of sward condition, and target values have been set for particular grassland types in the UK (Milsom et al., 2000; Robertson and Jefferson, 2000; Robertson et al., 2000; Kirkham et al., 2001; Vickery et al., 2001). Some species, such as grasshoppers (Gardiner et al., 2002) and butterflies and moths (Po¨yry et al., 2004), are known to require a certain range of sward heights for optimum habitat conditions. Agri-environment prescriptions could specify the ideal sward height to be maintained to achieve biodiversity objectives. The manager then has the flexibility to achieve these targets in the way most compatible with the livestock system, which might include relatively highstocking rates for short periods (Peel and Jefferson, 2000). The spatial distribution of targeted plant species for which grazing livestock have a preference might also be worth considering, although this is not easily measured. Livestock consume aggregated preferred patches more so than dispersed ones, which implies that target sward heights should be higher when plant species of high nature conservation value, but are sensitive to grazing pressure, are also distributed in an aggregated pattern (Dumont et al., 2000). There is evidence that farmers and schemes can manage this increased complexity (Hole, 2007). Bailey et al. (1998) also suggested a number of solutions to reducing grazing selectivity, such as flexible fencing, strategic placement of salt and water, manipulation of forage quality by burning or



mowing, herding and even exploiting individual variation in grazing selectivity. Both the initial assessment and development of such site-specific grazing plans will require input from advisors which implies certain time and resource costs. Additional time would also be required by the manager to take sward height measurements throughout the year. These measures are likely to have higher transaction costs than the simple prescriptive schemes but are more likely to deliver their biodiversity objectives. While, on some sites, a decline in plant diversity under low stocking intensity was recorded, an increase in the diversity of butterflies and grasshoppers was found (Wallis De Vries et al., 2007). Thus, there are potential benefits for invertebrate biodiversity from extensive grazing management practices. This concurs with other research findings which identify significant increases in invertebrate diversity on fields with agrienvironment schemes (Van Wieren, 1998; Kleijn et al., 2001; Kruess and Tscharntke, 2002a,b; Dennis et al., 2004). This increase in invertebrate diversity may be because of reduced levels of disturbance on pastures with lower stocking rates, an increase in patchiness, as well as increases in tall vegetation (Wallis De Vries et al. 2007). These findings suggest that management practices should seek to obtain sward structural diversity in order to optimize invertebrate numbers. Wallis De Vries et al. (2007) and Scimone et al. (2007) found that a change in stocking rates produced different results for vegetation and invertebrate biodiversity. Similarly, Kruess and Tscharntke (2002a) found that increased grazing intensity of pastures resulted in no changes to plant diversity, but invertebrate diversity declined. What may be beneficial for one objective may have damaging consequences for another. Furthermore, Wallis De Vries et al. (2007) found that a reduction in stocking intensity was detrimental to some ground-dwelling arthropods in France and Germany, whereas it favoured both butterflies and grasshoppers. This finding suggests that one strategy for agri-environment prescriptions will not optimize all outcomes. Hence, clear goals for management prescriptions in agri-environment schemes are required. Schemes aimed at particular species, flora or fauna, habitats or landscapes will require different management prescriptions. The scope of the scheme in terms of target audience will also affect the optimum management prescriptions. For example, a broad and shallow scheme aimed at attracting a large uptake of land managers, such as the Environmental Stewardship Entry Level Scheme in the UK will require different prescriptions compared with schemes targeting sites that are already species-rich or have a high potential, such as the Higher Level part of the same scheme. Furthermore, management prescrip-

tions will differ if the aim is to protect a particular species. The Entry Level Scheme has options where the objective is to enhance habitat quality for some broad faunal groups such as pollen- and nectar-feeding invertebrates or seed-eating birds. However, the Higher Level Scheme is more focused on specific habitat maintenance or restoration and, by association, has species-specific targets embedded in management objectives.

Management and policy implications – effect of livestock breed One of the priorities of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture is the promotion of actions to conserve local or threatened livestock breeds or plant varieties. In 2001, in the EU, there were 8442 agri-environmental contracts to support endangered livestock breeds, covering 60 568 livestock units (European Commission, 2003). While the main aim of these schemes is the preservation of genetic material, some national schemes have also been developed with the intention of using traditional breeds to increase the biodiversity of grassland (Bullock and Oates, 1998; Tolhurst and Oates, 2001; English Nature, 2002). The low uptake of genetic diversity agri-environment schemes in some EU countries, including Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland (European Commission, 2005), may be related to farmers’ resistance. In the UK, Yarwood and Evans (1999) found that there was generally reluctance among farmers to switch to traditional breeds, which are often considered to be unprofitable and inefficient. However, those farmers in the study who were using traditional breeds, such as Salers cattle in France, Devon cattle in the UK region and Harzer Ho¨henvieh cattle in Germany, were positive about the breeds. These contrasting opinions suggest that there may be some cultural resistance involved in adopting traditional breeds, which requires further exploration. The lack of interest in using traditional breeds may be because of the loss of cultural traditions, or because these breeds have become socially unacceptable or stigmatized among the farming community (Bignal et al., 1999). Other reasons may be due to lack of traditional breed supply or resistance to breed changes because of long-term investment in the genetics of the current stock. The results of the experimental programme show no clear evidence that the use of traditional breeds is likely to bring greater and ⁄ or wider biodiversity benefits on semi-natural grassland than commercial breeds. There were few differences in diet selection between commercial and traditional breeds grazing at a low intensity, and the weak amplitude of these differences does not allow any clear management implications to be


434 J. Mills et al.

identified (Dumont et al., 2007). Moreover, the livestock breed had no effect on biodiversity outcomes (Scimone et al., 2007; Wallis De Vries et al., 2007). Thus, on the basis of these results, the case for governmental support for traditional breeds cannot be justified from a biodiversity perspective. However, valid objectives for governmental support may include the maintenance of the genetic resource, management of cultural landscape using breeds that reflect traditional local practices (Rook and Tallowin, 2003) or obtaining marketing advantages by reconnecting with local food networks.

Acknowledgments This work was funded by European project ‘Integrating Foraging Attributes of Domestic Livestock Breeds into Sustainable Systems for Grassland Biodiversity and Wider Countryside Benefits (FORBIOBEN)’, contract QLK5-CT2201-00130. The authors are very grateful to all project colleagues for their support throughout the project.

References Bailey D.W., Dumont B. and Wallis De Vries M.F. (1998) Utilization of heterogeneous grasslands by domestic herbivores: theory to management. Annales de Zootechnie, 47, 321–333. Bakker J.P. and Berendse F. (1999) Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 63–68. Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F. and Godeschalk F. (1996) Farming at the margins; abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe. London, UK and The Hague, The Netherlands: Institute for European Environmental Policy and Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI-DLO). Bignal E.M., McCracken D.I. and Mackay A. (1999) The economics and ecology of extensively reared Highland Cattle in the Scottish LFAs: an example of a selfsustaining livestock system. In: Laker J.P. and Milne J.A. (eds) Livestock production in the European LFAs: meeting future economic, environmental and policy objectives through integrated research. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the LSIRD Network, Bray, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 145–154. Aberdeen, UK: Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Bobbink R. (1991) Effects of nutrient enrichment in Dutch chalk grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 28, 28–41. Bullock D.J. and Oates M.R. (1998) Rare and minority livestock breeds in management for nature conservation: many questions and few answers? In: Lewis R.M., Alderson G.L.M. and Mercer J.T. (eds) The potential role of rare livestock breeds in UK farming systems, British Society of Animal Science Workshop Publication No 41, pp. 28–34. Edinburgh, UK: British Society of Animal Science.

Cormack W.J. and Elliot J. (1994) Conversion to organic arable production, 1990–1993. Norfolk, UK: ADAS Terrington. Dennis P., Doering J., Stockan J.A., Jones J.R., Rees M.E., Vale J.E. and Sibbald A.R. (2004) Consequences for biodiversity of reducing inputs to upland temperate pastures: effects on beetles (Coleoptera) of cessation of nitrogen fertilizer application and reductions in stocking rates of sheep. Grass and Forage Science, 59, 121–135. Diack L.A., Burke M. and Peel S. (2000) Grassland management for nature conservation: towards a consistent approach to sward measurement and description. In: Rook A.J. and Penning P.D. (eds) Grazing management, the principles and practice of grazing, for profit and environmental gain, within temperate grassland systems, British Grassland Society Occasional Symposium No. 34, pp. 155–156. Reading, UK: British Grassland Society. Dumont B., Maillard J.F. and Petit M. (2000) The effect of the spatial distribution of plant species within the sward on the searching success of sheep when grazing. Grass and Forage Science, 55, 138–145. Dumont B., Rook A.J., Coran C. and Ro¨ver K.-U. (2007) Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems: 2. diet selection. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 159–171. English Nature (2002) Traditional breeds incentive scheme for Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. European Commission (2001) Environment 2010: our future, our choice – the sixth Environment Action Programme. COM (2001) 31 final. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities. European Commission (2003) Agriculture and the environment. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission DirectorateGeneral for Agriculture. European Commission (2005) Agri-environment measures: overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Gardiner T., Pye M., Field R. and Hill J. (2002) The influence of sward height and vegetation composition in determining the habitat preferences of three Chorthippus species (Orthoptera: Acrididae) in Chelmsford, Essex, UK. Journal of Orthoptera Research, 11, 207–213. Goss S., Bignal E. and Pienkowski M.W. (1998) Agenda 2000 and prospects for the environment. Report of the seminar organised by the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism at COPA, Brussels on 3 February 1998. Bridgend, Isle of Islay, UK: European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism. Gough L., Osenberg C.W., Gross K.L. and Collins S.L. (2000) Fertilization effects on species density and primary productivity in herbaceous plant communities. Oikos, 89, 428–439. HDRA (2000) Conversion to organic field vegetable production, 1996–2000. Ryton, Coventry, UK: HDRA. Hellstrom K., Huhta A.P., Rautio P., Tuomi J., Oksanen J. and Kari L. (2003) Use of sheep grazing in the restoration



of semi-natural meadows in northern Finland. Applied Vegetation Science, 6, 45–52. Hole M. (2007) A future in farming for wildlife: a farmer’s perspective. In: Hopkins J. (ed.) High value grasslands, providing biodiversity, a clean environment and premium products, Occasional Symposium of the British Grassland Society No. 38, pp. 180–185. Cirencester, UK: British Grassland Society. Isselststein J., Griffith B.A., Pradel P. and Rover K.-U. (2007) Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems: 1. nutritive value of herbage and livestock performance. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 145–158. Kirkham F.W., Burke M.J., Diack I.A. and Peel S. (2001) Development of sward-based guidelines for grassland management in ESAs and Countryside Stewardship. London, UK: MAFF. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R. and Gillissen N. (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature, 413, 723–725. Kruess A. and Tscharntke T. (2002a) Contrasting responses of plant and insect diversity to variation in grazing intensity. Biological Conservation, 106, 293–302. Kruess A. and Tscharntke T. (2002b) Grazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology, 106, 1570–1580. Kuit G and Van der Meulen H. (1997) Marketing beef from nature reserves in Holland. Faunas Issue 2. Newsletter of Livestock Systems in Integrated Rural Development Network. Aberdeen, UK: Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Leake A.R. (1999) A report of the results of CWS Agriculture’s Organic Farming Experiments 1989–1996. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 160, 73–81. Milsom T.P., Langton S.D., Parkin W.K., Peel S., Bishop J.D., Hart J.D. and Moore N.P. (2000) Habitat models of bird species’ distribution: an aid to the management of coastal grazing marshes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 706–727. Nix J. (1979) Farm management: the state of the art (or science). Journal of Agricultural Economics, 30, 277–291. Nix J. (2004) Farm management pocketbook, 35th edn. Wye, UK: Imperial College London. Pavlu˚ V., Hejcman M., Pavlu˚ L., Gaisler J., Nezˇerkova´ P. and Guerovich Andaluz M. (2005) Vegetation changes after cessation of grazing management in the Jizerske´ Mountains (Czech Republic). Annales Botanici Fennici, 42, 343–349. Peel S. and Jefferson R.G. (2000) Grazing and biodiversity: opportunities and limitations in combining agricultural and ecological knowledge. In: Rook A.J. and Penning P.D. (eds) Grazing management: the principles and practice of grazing for profit and environmental gain with temperate grassland systems British Grassland Society Occasional Symposium No. 34, pp. 181–188. Reading, UK: British Grassland Society.

Plankl R. (2001) Agrarumweltprogramme - konzepte, entwicklungen, ku¨nftige ausgestaltung. Federal Agricultural Research, special issue 231. Braunschweig, Germany: Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL). Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming (2002) Farming and food a sustainable future. London, UK: HMSO. Po¨yry J., Lindgren S., Salminen J. and Kuussaari M. (2004) Restoration of butterfly and moth communities in seminatural grasslands by cattle grazing. Ecological Applications, 14, 1656–1670. Robertson H.J. and Jefferson R.G. (2000) Monitoring the condition of lowland grassland SSSIs. I. English Nature’s rapid assessment method. English Nature Research Report No. 315. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. Robertson H.J., Bingham J. and Slater I. (2000) Monitoring the condition of lowland grassland SSSIs. II. A test of the rapid assessment approach. English Nature Research Report No. 315. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. Rook A.J. and Tallowin J.R.B. (2003) Grazing and pasture management for biodiversity benefit. Animal Research, 52, 181–189. Rosa F. and Mancini C. (1997) Socio-economic effects of quality system implementation in typical productions: the case of Parmigiano Agroindustrial System (PAIS). In: Arfini F. and Mora C. (eds) Typical and traditional productions: rural effect and agro-industrial problems. Proceedings of the 52nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar, Parma, Italy, June 19–21, 1997, pp. 503–528. Parma, Italy: University of Parma, Istituto di Economia Agaria e Forestale. Scimone M., Smith R.E.N., Garel J.P. and Sahin N. (2007) Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems: 3. vegetation diversity. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 172–184. Smith R.S., Shiel R.S., Millward D. and Corkhill P. (2000) The interactive effects of management on the productivity and plant community structure of an upland meadow: an 8-year field trial. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 1029–1043. Smith R.S., Shiel R.S., Millward D., Corkhill P. and Sanderson R.A. (2002) Soil seed banks and the interactive effect of meadow management on vegetation change in a 10-year meadow field trial. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 279–293. Tallowin J.R.B., Rook A.J. and Rutter S.M. (2005) Impact of grazing management on biodiversity of grasslands. Animal Science, 81, 193–196. Tolhurst S. and Oates M. (2001) The breed profiles handbook. Peterborough, UK: English Nature. Van Wieren S.E. (1998) Effects of large herbivores upon the animal community. In: Wallis De Vries M.F., Bakker J.P. and Van Wieren S.E. (eds) Grazing and conservation management, pp. 185–214. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vickery J.A., Tallowin J.R., Feber R.E., Asteraki E.J., Atkinson P.W., Fuller R.J. and Brown V.K. (2001) The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain:


436 J. Mills et al.

effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 647–664. Wallis De Vries M.F., Parkinson A.E., Dulphy J.P., Sayer M. and Diana E. (2007) Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems: 4. animal biodiversity. Grass and Forage Science, 62, 185–197.

Willems J.H., Peet R.K. and Bik L. (1993) Changes in chalk-grassland structure and species richness resulting from selective nutrient additions. Journal of Vegetation Science, 4, 203–212. Yarwood R. and Evans N. (1999) The changing geography of rare livestock breeds in Britain. Geography, 84, 80–87.
