Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-18T21:00:14.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Intensification of cattle ranching production systems: socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

A. E. Latawiec
Affiliation:
International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil Department of Production Engineering and Logistics, Opole University of Technology, Luboszycka 5, Opole 45-036, Poland School of Environmental Science, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
B. B. N. Strassburg*
Affiliation:
International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontificia Universidade Catolica, Rio de Janeiro 22453-900, Brazil
J. F. Valentim
Affiliation:
Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research (Embrapa Acre), Caixa Postal 321, CEP 69900-970, Rio Branco, AC, Brazil Sustainability Science Program and Energy Technology Innovation Policy Research Group, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
F. Ramos
Affiliation:
Agrosuisse, Rua Visconde de Pirajá 414, Rio de Janeiro 22410-002, Brazil
H. N. Alves-Pinto
Affiliation:
International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina 124, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil
Get access

Abstract

Intensification of Brazilian cattle ranching systems has attracted both national and international attention due to its direct relation with Amazon deforestation on the one hand and increasing demand of the global population for meat on the other. Since Brazilian cattle ranching is predominantly pasture-based, we particularly focus on pasture management. We summarize the most recurrent opportunities and risks associated with pasture intensification that are brought up within scientific and political dialogues, and discuss them within the Brazilian context. We argue that sustainable intensification of pasturelands in Brazil is a viable way to increase agricultural output while simultaneously sparing land for nature. Since environmental degradation is often associated with low-yield extensive systems in Brazil, it is possible to obtain higher yields, while reversing degradation, by adopting practices like rotational grazing, incorporation of legumes and integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems. Technical assistance is however essential, particularly for small- and medium-scale farmers. Sound complementary policies and good governance must accompany these measures so that a ‘rebound effect’ does not lead to increased deforestation and other adverse social and environmental impacts. It is also important that animal welfare is not compromised. Although the discussion is presented with respect to Brazil, some aspects are relevant to other developing countries.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alves-Pinto, HN, Newton, P and Pinto, L 2013. Certifying sustainability: opportunities and challenges for the cattle supply chain in Brazil. CCAFS Working Paper no. 57. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Andrade, CMS, Garcia, R and Valentim, JF 2006. Grazing management strategies for massaigrass-forage peanut pastures. Definition of award targets and carrying capacity. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35, 352357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, CMS, Ferreira, AS and Farinatti, LHE 2011. Tecnologias para Intensificação da Produção Animal em Pastagens: Fertilizantes x Leguminosas. 26° Simpósio Sobre Manejo da Pastagem. Anais: A empresa pecuária baseada em pastagens. FEALQ, Piracicaba, Brazil.Google Scholar
Andrade, CMS, Garcia, R, Valentim, JF and Pereira, OG 2012. Productivity, utilization efficiency and sward targets for mixed pastures of marandugrass, forage peanut and tropical kudzu. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 41, 512520.Google Scholar
Barioni, LG, de Lima, MA, de Zen, S, Guimaraes, R Jr and Ferreira, AC 2007. A baseline projection of methane emissions by the Brazilian beef sector: preliminary results. In Greenhouse gases and animal agriculture conference. Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Barona, E, Ramankutty, N, Hyman, G and Coomes, OT 2010. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5, 19.Google Scholar
Barretto, AG, Berndes, G, Sparovek, G and Wirsenius, S 2013. Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: an analysis of the 1975–2006 period. Global Change Biology 19, 18041815.Google Scholar
Belsky, AJ, Matzke, A and Uselman, S 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54, 419431.Google Scholar
Bowman, MS, Soares-Filho, BS, Merry, FD, Nepstad, DC, Rodrigues, H and Almeida, OT 2012. Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29, 558568.Google Scholar
Brando, PM, Coe, MT, DeFries, R and Azevedo, AA 2013. Ecology, economy and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368, 18.Google Scholar
Briske, D, Nathan, FS, Huntsinger, L, Fernandez-Gimenez, M, Budd, B and Derner, JD 2011. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: integrating human dimensions into rangeland research rangeland. Rangeland Ecological Management 64, 325334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A 2008. Social science research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bustamante, MMC, Nobre, CA, Smeraldi, R, Aguiar, APD, Barioni, LG, Ferreira, LG, Longo, K, May, P, Pinto, AS and Ometto, JPHB 2012. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from cattle raising in Brazil. Climatic Change 115, 559577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada – Cepea/Esalq – da Universidade de São Paulo 2012. Intensificação de pastagem pode Melhorar em 62% receita bruta do pecuarista. Ativos da Pecuária de corte 20. http://www.canaldoprodutor.com.br/sites/default/files/ativo_corte_20.pdf Google Scholar
Cezar, IM, Queiroz, HP, Thiago, LRLS, Cassales, FLG and Costa, FP 2005. Sistemas de produção de gado de corte no Brasil: uma descrição com ênfase no regime alimentar e no abate. Embrapa Gado de Corte/Documentos 151, Campo Grande, MS.Google Scholar
Costa, JH, Hötzel, MJ, Longo, C and Balcão, LF 2013. A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in southern Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 307317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) 2013. Production and protection: A frst look at key challenges in Brazil. Núcleo de Avaliação de Politicas Climaticas. PUC, Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Dalla-Nora, EN, Aguiara, APD, Lapola, DM and Woltjer, G 2014. Why have land use change models for the Amazon failed to capture the amount of deforestation over the last decade? Land Use Policy , doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.004 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFries, R and Rosenzweig, C 2010. Toward a whole-landscape approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 1962719632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias Filho, MB and Ferreira, JN 2008. Influência do pastejo na biodiversidade do ecossistema da pastagem. In Simpósio sobre manejo estratégico da pastagem (ed. OG Pereira, JÁ Obeid, DM Fonseca and D Nascimento Jr), pp. 4774. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa.Google Scholar
Donkor, NT, Gedir, JV, Hudson, RJ, Bork, EW, Chanasyk, DS and Naeth, MA 2002. Impacts of grazing systems on soil compaction and pasture production in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 82, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drewry, JJ 2006. Natural recovery of soil physical properties from treading damage of pastoral soils in New Zealand and Australia: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114, 159169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, DP, Santos, SA, Santos, MCA, Lima, JVB and Keuroghlian, A 2011. Rotational grazing of native pasturelands in the Pantanal: an effective conservation tool. Tropical Conservation Science 4, 3952.Google Scholar
Embrapa 2011a. Gado de Corte. Boas práticas agropecuárias: bovinos de corte. Manual de orientações (ed. ER do Valle). Embrapa, Campo Grande, MS.Google Scholar
Embrapa 2011b. Marco referencial: integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta (iLPF). (ed. LF Stone). Embrapa, Brasília.Google Scholar
Embrapa 2013. Balanço Social. Retrieved May 22, 2013, from http://bs.sede.embrapa.br/2012/ Google Scholar
Euclides, VPB, Macedo, MCM, da Silva, SC, do Nascimento, D Jr, do Valle, CB and Barbosa, RA 2008. Gramíneas Cultivadas. In Agricultura tropical – quatro décadas de inovações tecnológicas, institucionais e políticas (ed. AC Sagebin and AG da Silva), pp. 10711110. Embrapa Informação Tecnológica, Brasilia.Google Scholar
Food and Agricuture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2013. World livestock 2013 – changing disease landscapes. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Fearnside, PM 2002. Can pasture intensification discourage deforestation in the Amazon and Pantanal regions of Brazil?. In Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon (ed. CH Wood and R Porro), pp. 283364. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
Ferraz, SJB and de Felicio, PE 2010. Production systems – an example from Brazil. Meat Science 84, 238243.Google Scholar
Fonte, SJ, Nesper, M, Hegglin, D, Velásquez, JE, Ramirez, B, Rao, M, Bernasconi, SM, Bünemann, EK and Frossard, E 2013. Pasture degradation impacts soil phosphorus storage via changes to aggregate-associated soil organic matter in highly weathered tropical soils. Biology and Biochemistry 68, 150157.Google Scholar
Garnett, T, Appleby, MC, Balmford, A, Bateman, IJ, Benton, TG, Bloomer, P, Burlingame, B, Dawkins, M, Dolan, L, Fraser, D, Herrero, M, Hoffmann, I, Smith, P, Thornton, PK, Toulmin, C, Vermeulen, SJ and Godfray, HCJ 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341, 3334.Google Scholar
German, L, Berhane, D, Kidane, D and Shemodoe, R 2006. Social and environmental trade-offs in tree species selection: a methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environmental Development and Sustainability 8, 535552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, M, Thornton, PK, Notenbaert, AM, Wood, S, Msangi, S, Freeman, HA, Bossio, D, Dixon, J, Peters, M, van de Steeg, J, Lynam, J, Rao, PP, Macmillan, S, Gerard, B, McDermott, J, Sere, C and Rosegrant, M 2010. Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327, 823825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) 2006. Censo Agropecuário. IBGE, Brasília.Google Scholar
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) 2013. Pesquisa Pecuária Municipal. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/acervo/acervo2.asp?e=v&p=PP&z=t&o=24 Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) 2013. Estimativas Anuais desde 1988 ate 2011: Taxa de desmatamento anual (km2/ano). Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/prodes_1988_2011.htm Google Scholar
Jank, L, Valle, CB and Carvalho, PF 2005. New grasses and legumes: advances and perspectives for the tropical zones of Latin America. In grasslands – developments, opportunities and perspectives (ed. S Reynolds and J Frame), pp. 5579. Enfield: Science Publishers, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Junior, AAB, Moraes, A, Veiga, M, Pelissari, A and Dieckow, J 2009. Crop-livestock system: intensified use of agricultural lands. Ciência Rural 39, 19251933.Google Scholar
Kaimowitz, D and Angelsen, A 2008. America’s tropical forests? Journal of Sustainable Forestry 27, 624.Google Scholar
Lambin, EF and Meyfroidt, P 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 34653472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lapola, DM, Schaldach, R, Alcamo, J, Bondeau, A, Koch, J, Koelking, C and Priess, JA 2010. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 33883393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latawiec, AE, Strassburg, BBN, Rodriguez, AM, Matt, E, Nijbroek, R and Silos, M 2014. Suriname: reconciling agricultural development and conservation of unique natural wealth. Land Use Policy 38, 627636.Google Scholar
MAPA/AGE 2010. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Assessoria de Gestão Estratégica. Brasil Projeções do agronegocio 2010/2011 a 2020/2021. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.agricultura.gov.br/ Google Scholar
Martha, GB Jr, Alves, E and Contini, E 2012. Land-saving approaches and beef production growth in Brazil. Agricultural Systems 110, 173177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, LJ and Zinck, JA 2004. Temporal variation of soil compaction and deterioration of soil quality in pasture areas of Colombian Amazonia. Soil and Tillage Research 75, 317.Google Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Staal, SJ, Freeman, HA, Herrero, M and Van de Steeg, JA 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, RW 2008. Environmental impacts of pasture-based farming. Ag Research, Invermay, Agricultural Centre, Mosgiel, New Zealand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekonnen, MM and Hoekstra, AY 2011. National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, MM and Hoekstra, AY 2012. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, ND, Gerber, JS, Johnston, M, Ray, DK, Ramankutty, N and Foley, JA 2012. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254257.Google Scholar
Murgueitio, E, Calle, Z, Uribe, F, Calle, A and Solorio, B 2011. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management 261, 16541663.Google Scholar
Pacheco, AR, Chaves, RQ and Nicoli, CML 2013. Integration of crops, livestock, and forestry: a system of production for the Brazilian Cerrados. In Eco-efficiency: from vision to reality (ed. C Hershey and P Neate), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
Paciullo, DSC, Pires, MFA, Aroeira, LJ, Morenz, MJF, Maurício, RM, Gomide, CAM and Silveira, SR 2014. Sward characteristics and performance of dairy cows in organic grass–legume pastures shaded by tropical trees. Animal 8, 12641271.Google Scholar
Phalan, B, Onial, M, Balmford, A and Green, RE 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, 12891291.Google Scholar
Phelps, J, Carrasco, LR, Webb, EL, Koh, LP and Pascual, U 2013. Agricultural intensification escalates future conservation costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 76017606.Google Scholar
Porfírio-da-Silva, V 2004. O sistema silvipastoril e seus benefícios para a sustentabilidade na pecuária. Embrapa, Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Rivero, S, Almeida, O, Ávila, S and Oliveira, W 2009. Pecuária e desmatamento: uma análise das principais causas diretas do desmatamento na Amazônia. Nova Economica 19, 4166.Google Scholar
Shelton, RM, Franzel, S and Peters, M 2005. Adoption of tropical legume technology around the world: analysis of success. In Grassland: a global resource (ed. DA McGilloway), pp. 149166. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares-Filho, B, Moutinho, P, Nepstad, D, Anderson, A, Rodrigues, H, Garcia, R, Dietzsch, L, Merry, F, Bowman, M, Hissa, L, Silvestrini, R and Maretti, C 2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 1082110826.Google Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Turner, RK, Fisher, B, Schaeffer, R and Lovett, A 2009. Reducing emissions from deforestation – the ‘combined incentives’ mechanism and empirical simulations. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 19, 265278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Kelly, A, Balmford, A, Davies, RG, Gibbs, HK, Lovett, A, Miles, L, Orme, CDL, Price, J, Turner, RK and Rodrigues, ASL 2010. Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters 3, 98105.Google Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Micol, L, Ramos, F, Seroa da Motta, R, Latawiec, AE and Lisauskas, F 2012a. Increasing agricultural output while avoiding deforestation – a case study for Mato Grosso, Brazil. Report for Prince’s Rainforests Project Prince’s Charities’ International Sustainability Unit.Google Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Rodrigues, ASL, Gusti, M, Balmford, A, Fritz, S, Obersteiner, M, Turner, RK and Brooks, TM 2012b. Impacts of incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation on global species extinctions. Nature Climate Change 2, 350355.Google Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Latawiec, AE, Barioni, L, Nobre, C, Portifio da Silva, V, Valentim, J, Vianna, M and Assad, E 2014a. When enough should be enough: improved use of current agricultural lands could meet demands and spare nature in Brazil. Global Environmental Change (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strassburg, BBN, Latawiec, AE, Creed, A, Nguyen, N, Sunnenberg, G, Miles, L, Lovett, A, Joppa, L, Ashton, R, Scharlemann, JPW, Cronenrbergen, F and Iribarrem, A 2014b. Biophysical suitability, economic pressure and land-cover change: a global probabilistic approach and insights for REDD+. Sustainability Science 9, 129141.Google Scholar
Tilman, D, Cassman, KG, Matson, PA, Naylor, R and Polasky, S 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671677.Google Scholar
Valentim, JF and Andrade, CMS 2005. Forage peanut (Arachis pintoi): a high yielding and high quality tropical legume for sustainable cattle production system in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Paper presented at the International Grassland Congress, Dublin.Google Scholar
Valentim, JF and Andrade, CMS 2009. Tendências e perspectivas da pecuária bovina na amazônia brasileira. Amazônia: Ciência & Desenvolvimento 4, 730. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.cofecon.org.br/dmdocuments/docComissoes/publicacao(2).pdf Google Scholar
Van Vliet, N, Mertz, O, Heinimann, A, Langanke, T, Pascual, U, Schmook, B, Adams, C, Schmidt-Vogt, D, Messerli, P, Leisz, S, Castella, J-C, Jorgensen, L, Birch-Thomsen, T, Hett, C, Bruun, TB, Ickowitz, A, Kim Chi, V, Yasuyuki, K, Fox, J, Padoch, C, Dressler, W and Ziegler, AD 2012. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Global Environmental Change 22, 418429.Google Scholar
White, DS, Peters, M and Horne, P 2013. Global impacts from improved tropical forages: a meta-analysis revealing overlooked benefits and costs, evolving values and new priorities. Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales 1, 1224.Google Scholar
World Bank 2012. Forest carbon partnership facility. Participating countries readiness proposals. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Latawiec et al. supplementary material

Supplementary figures

Download Latawiec et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.3 MB