‘Silvopasture’ May Not Be the Major Climate Solution Some Say It Is
“Silvopasture”— the practice of integrating trees, forage and livestock on the same land, rather than using that land exclusively for pasture — has been gaining interest as a major natural climate solution in the U.S.
Silvopasture is not a new concept; it’s already used in some parts of Latin America, where there’s evidence that it can boost carbon storage and livestock productivity simultaneously. But it is now starting to be promoted as a potential “win–win” for agriculture and climate in the United States.
One analysis suggests that anywhere from 14 to over 60 million acres of pastureland in the eastern U.S. could, in principle, be converted to silvopasture. It estimates this would capture between 4.9 and 25.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. For reference, 25 million tonnes of CO2e is roughly comparable to what 6 million gas-powered cars emit in a year.
These analyses are appealing to farmers and policymakers looking for viable, sustainable climate solutions. But does the evidence support the claims?
Our new working paper seeks to answer this question. We reviewed research and key field studies on how converting temperate pastures to silvopasture affects both livestock productivity and carbon storage. Our conclusion is that in the U.S. — even in the eastern region most targeted for silvopasture potential — this should not yet be treated as a large, reliable solution for mitigating climate change. The evidence base is too thin and inconsistent.
This isn’t just an exercise in theory: Which climate solutions are promoted and prioritized has real implications for where we direct policy and funding — and, ultimately, how successful we are in tackling the climate crisis.
Silvopasture may still play a role in climate resilience and emissions reductions in the U.S. But at this time, the focus should be on well-designed pilots to determine where it will generate real benefits and provide an economical solution.
Silvopasture’s Potential — and the Need for Careful Assessment
Livestock production is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly methane, which has vastly more warming power than carbon dioxide in the near term. There is growing interest in practices that might reduce livestock’s climate footprint without taking farmland out of use. Silvopasture is an attractive prospect because adding trees to pasture could, theoretically, boost carbon storage and help fight warming while still supporting grazing.
Silvopasture has drawn particular attention in the eastern half of the United States. The wetter pastures in that part of the country, many of which were historically forests or tall‑grass prairies, support more cattle overall than the drier western rangelands. Since these landscapes can support trees, several influential assessments and platforms have highlighted silvopasture’s potential in the region.
In the right context, silvopasture can offer many benefits. Farmers are grappling with growing pressure to reduce GHG emissions, including from food companies that want to purchase lower-emissions products. Silvopasture could be one way for them to answer that call.
Farmers also face increasingly extreme heat that can stress livestock and reduce productivity. In theory, trees in pastures could provide shade to protect them. Trees could also offer additional products, such as timber or nuts, while absorbing and storing carbon ― a rare triple win.
But it’s crucial that we have a realistic understanding of silvopasture’s potential. If research overstates what it can deliver in the eastern United States, there could be real consequences. Climate plans can rely on emissions reductions that may not materialize. Companies and policymakers can direct limited money and attention toward the wrong solutions. Farmers can be encouraged to adopt systems that are costly, management intensive, and may reduce forage or livestock output. If silvopasture causes livestock production to fall in the eastern U.S. and that production shifts elsewhere, carbon reductions on paper could be canceled out by clearing land for pasture in other places.
The Reality of Silvopasture in the Eastern US
When we examine evidence from the eastern United States more closely, it becomes clearer that silvopasture is not likely to be a simple multiple-win solution. Rather, it could bring real trade-offs for farmers and environmental outcomes.
Productivity trade-offs: Less forage, less meat and milk
One major challenge with existing research on silvopasture in the U.S. is that most estimates focus solely on tree carbon and largely omit the effects on farms’ productivity.
From a farmer’s perspective, the most immediate question is how trees affect pasture growth and animal performance. Across existing syntheses examining productivity (which are limited), the pattern is relatively consistent: Forage production and (where measured) animal productivity per hectare tend to decline when trees are added to temperate pastures, especially at higher tree densities or as stands age.
One recent global analysis found that fenced pasture areas with trees (similar to silvopasture systems) produced, on average, 20% less forage material than those without trees ― meaning there was less for livestock to eat. The effects were even more severe at higher tree densities (above roughly 800 trees per hectare) and for older trees. The study reported lower livestock yields in these systems.
Although the exact numbers vary, the broader pattern is consistent. Trees compete with forage for light, water and nutrients, and that competition often intensifies as trees mature.
This does not mean that silvopasture can never work. In some cases, the combined output of trees and livestock can exceed what would be produced on separate, equal areas of pasture and forest, a concept known as "over-yielding.” But even here, experience and evidence are limited, and the results need to be taken with caution. Over-yielding also does not automatically translate into large climate gains. Such exercises usually start with thinning or partially clearing forests to establish silvopasture, which reduces carbon stored in forests. This means that any potential carbon gains are likely more limited than estimates suggest.
For eastern U.S. livestock systems, these productivity trade-offs matter enormously. If silvopasture lowers output per hectare, adoption will be harder for farmers to justify financially. It also means that climate accounting cannot stop at measuring on-farm tree growth. It has to ask whether the same amount of beef or milk can still be produced without expanding production (and leading to carbon losses) somewhere else.
Most carbon gains appear to be in trees, not soils
Some of the optimism about silvopasture depends on the idea that soils will store more carbon once trees are added. But this may not be the case.
There is clear evidence that adding trees to pasture increases carbon stored in biomass, as trees absorb carbon dioxide and hold carbon in their trunks, branches and roots. A recent U.S. study in the Northeast found that silvopastures established by planting trees stored about 40% more total ecosystem carbon (in both plants and soil) than those without. However, nearly all of the additional carbon storage was in tree biomass rather than in the soil.
Across research syntheses examining transitions from pasture or grassland to silvopasture, soil carbon results are mixed. This is plausible biologically. Pastures that have accumulated substantial soil carbon over long periods may have limited capacity for further gains. Trees also change root distributions, shade the understory, and alter litter (dead plant material) inputs in ways that do not necessarily increase carbon in the topsoil.
Overall, current evidence suggests that in the eastern U.S., most additional carbon from silvopasture will be in tree biomass rather than in soils. Carbon gains in trees will vary widely depending on species; density; climate; and whether trees are left to grow, harvested for wood or pruned as fodder. These gains can also be temporary: Stored carbon is released over time when trees are cut for timber or heavily pruned.
Critically, changes to aboveground tree carbon alone do not tell us whether silvopasture leads to a net climate benefit. If adding trees reduces meat or milk per hectare and demand stays constant, production may shift to new land elsewhere, triggering carbon losses from native vegetation or forests. Robust accounting needs to estimate both the additional tree carbon in silvopasture and the “land carbon leakage” associated with any displaced production.
Using trees for animal feed has limited potential in the US
One way silvopasture could, in theory, avoid productivity losses is by using trees primarily as fodder (a form of livestock feed) rather than timber. High‑protein fodder trees have been shown to boost livestock productivity in Colombia and Argentina, where forage quality is poor during the dry seasons and farmers often cannot afford supplemental protein.
But this potential is limited in the eastern U.S. Many pastures in the country already supply enough protein in the spring, and farmers have access to nutritious feed during other seasons. That means the benefit of additional protein from fodder trees is relatively low compared with the benefit in tropical systems. It could even hamper animal productivity and climate goals. This is because livestock can only use so much protein before they excrete it as urea to the environment, which can then transform to nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.
There are also practical and ecological constraints on the specific tree species proposed for this use. For example, red mulberry, highlighted in one recent assessment as a key fodder species, has significantly declined across its native range and is listed as threatened or endangered in several states due to hybridization with the invasive white mulberry. Willow species, another common fodder candidate, generally perform best on moist to wet soils, which can constrain large-scale planting on drier upland sites. In addition, several willow species are considered invasive or problematic in parts of the eastern U.S, as the authors of the assessment point out.
These observations do not rule out fodder-tree systems entirely. Fodder trees may make sense in specific niches, such as extensive grazing operations seeking more drought-resilient forage. But current evidence does not support treating fodder-tree silvopasture as a major, near-term climate solution for the eastern U.S.
Adoption and economics remain major barriers
Even if the results were uniformly positive, large-scale silvopasture would still face significant economic and practical hurdles. Establishing trees in pastures requires upfront investment in seedlings, fencing, planting and protection. It also requires ongoing labor for pruning, managing shade patterns, and, in the case of fodder trees, harvesting leaves or branches.
One U.S. study found that land managers prefer to create silvopasture by thinning established trees in plantations, woodlots or along pasture edges, and show less interest in planting trees into open pastures or fields. This is likely because it is cheaper, less labor-intensive, and avoids the long lag time before planted trees provide shade. Thinning existing forests can also generate revenue from timber sales, helping offset costs and reduce financial risk. However, thinning intact forests to make room for livestock grazing is more akin to forest loss (leading to additional emissions) than to a climate solution — unless it is counterbalanced by planting a similar amount of trees on additional pasture elsewhere.
Existing incentives through USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and other programs can help fund practice adoption. But funding is limited, and there’s little technical assistance available for silvopasture or other types of agroforestry. Many producers and local conservation staff are unfamiliar with silvopasture design and management, especially in cattle‑dominated systems, making it difficult to deploy even in promising areas.
Where Silvopasture Can Still Shine: Shade and Climate Resilience
None of this means that silvopasture should be dismissed everywhere. It means that claims should match the evidence and the geography. There are contexts in the U.S. where silvopasture appears more promising, especially for boosting climate resilience, animal welfare or diversified farm income, rather than as a major carbon-cutting opportunity.
Trees provide shade and can help animals cope with hotter days by reducing their exposure to direct sun. Access to shade can lower peak body temperature and physiological stress in livestock, and has even been shown to modestly increase milk production. (That said, U.S. dairy systems now mainly use grazing for young animals not yet producing milk, and few lactating cows have access to pasture.)
With hotter summers and more frequent heat waves projected across much of the eastern U.S., strategic tree planting for shade may help protect animal welfare and maintain productivity during extreme events. Many pastures already have scattered trees, but there has been little systematic research on the optimal amount of shade, where it should be located within paddocks, or how to balance shade benefits with forage loss.
Designing and testing “shade‑first” silvopasture configurations — such as widely spaced tree rows or clumps near water points and loafing areas — could offer important adaptation benefits, even if they have little or no impact on emissions. These systems may also provide co‑benefits, such as reduced wind exposure for livestock and improved water regulation.
What Policymakers, Funders and Companies Should Do Now
The right response is not to abandon silvopasture. It is to stop overselling it and start evaluating it more rigorously.
For policymakers and corporate sustainability planners, that means treating estimates of GHG mitigation potential from eastern U.S. silvopasture as provisional. These scenarios should not be viewed as a low-risk, well-validated climate solution.
For funders, the priority should be better evidence. Generating this evidence includes investing in long-term field trials in representative eastern pasture systems that measure not only tree growth, but also forage production, livestock output and changes in soil carbon. Studies should be designed to test realistic management strategies and practical adoption barriers, not just best-case potential under ideal conditions. Additional work can include research for temperate fodder trees that can complement, rather than replace, high‑quality pasture.
For climate accounting, productivity and land-use effects need to be built into the analysis. It is not enough to count new on-farm tree biomass. Any estimate of climate benefit should consider whether the same beef or milk production is maintained and whether declines in output could trigger expansion elsewhere, causing land carbon leakage.
For public agencies and farm support programs, a sensible near-term focus is demonstration projects that prioritize shade, adaptation and animal welfare. These projects can help answer practical questions about design, species choice, labor requirements and economic feasibility while avoiding inflated carbon claims.
In the near term — at least in the U.S. — the greatest opportunity may lie in treating silvopasture primarily as a climate‑resilience and animal‑welfare strategy, while building the rigorous data needed to understand when, where and how it can also contribute meaningfully to climate change mitigation.
To learn more, read our working paper: Exploring the productivity and climate mitigation potential of transitions from pasture to silvopasture in the eastern U.S.
Projects
U.S. Climate
Visit ProjectAdvancing climate action on federal, state and local levels to ensure a sustainable, prosperous and just future for all Americans.
Part of Climate