IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v162y2018icp1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study

Author

Listed:
  • Pereira, Carolina H.
  • Patino, Harold O.
  • Hoshide, Aaron K.
  • Abreu, Daniel C.
  • Alan Rotz, C.
  • Nabinger, Carlos

Abstract

Profitability and environmental benefits of beef cattle raised on natural pasture or combined with soybean in tropical biomes need to be better evaluated. The objective of this research was to simulate and evaluate three common pastured beef grazing systems in southern Brazil, estimating profitability and the environmental impacts of carbon footprint (CF) measured as kg of CO2 equivalent per kg of body weight produced (BWP), water footprint (kg of water used/kg of BWP) and energy footprint (MJ of energy used/kg of BWP) using the Integrated Farm System Model version 4.2. Simulations were run for Angus beef cattle raised on natural pasture (NP), natural pasture with low levels of grain supplementation (NPS), and NPS combined with soybean production (NPSC). Net animal weight produced (kg/ha/year) increased 7.9% for NPS and NPSC when compared with the NP system. Natural pasture production costs per hectare were lower (US$ 114) than that of NPS (US$ 126) and NPSC (US$ 233), while NP had a net return per hectare only 2% greater than NPS. Even though the gross income from animal sales was 5% higher in NPS than NP, the elevated cost of purchased feeds reduced net return per hectare. While costs were higher for NPSC, diversifying with soybean production, a high value commodity for cash sale, was profitable resulting in 44% and 47% greater net return per hectare than NP and NPS, respectively. Natural pasture with low supplementation (NPS) decreased CF by 2% when compared with NP due to faster weight gain from supplementation despite higher emissions from feed production. Furthermore, CF was also 6% lower for natural pasture combined with soybeans (NPSC) compared with NPS. However, the energy and water footprints and erosion increased with the greater use of both purchased feed and inputs required for feed and cash crop production. It can be challenging to increase beef cattle productivity and diversification to lower GHG emissions while minimizing water and energy use and soil erosion.

Suggested Citation

  • Pereira, Carolina H. & Patino, Harold O. & Hoshide, Aaron K. & Abreu, Daniel C. & Alan Rotz, C. & Nabinger, Carlos, 2018. "Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1-9.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16306692
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Newton, Peter & Gomez, Angelo Eduardo Angel & Jung, Suhyun & Kelly, Timothy & Mendes, Thiago de Araújo & Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Reis, Júlio César dos & Rodrigues, Renato de Aragão Ribeiro & Tipper, R, 2016. "Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in Brazil: The Rural Sustentável project," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 5-7.
    2. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 127-131, February.
    3. Pelletier, Nathan & Pirog, Rich & Rasmussen, Rebecca, 2010. "Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 380-389, July.
    4. Pashaei Kamali, Farahnaz & van der Linden, Aart & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Malafaia, Guilherme Cunha & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & de Boer, Imke J.M., 2016. "Environmental and economic performance of beef farming systems with different feeding strategies in southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 70-79.
    5. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    7. Vergé, X.P.C. & Dyer, J.A. & Desjardins, R.L. & Worth, D., 2008. "Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 126-134, September.
    8. Capper, Judith L. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2012. "The environmental and economic impact of removing growth-enhancing technologies from U.S. beef production," ISU General Staff Papers 201210010700001001, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Fiala, Nathan, 2008. "Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 519-525, November.
    10. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Erratum: Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 280-280, March.
    11. Cardoso, Abmael S. & Berndt, Alexandre & Leytem, April & Alves, Bruno J.R. & de Carvalho, Isabel das N.O. & de Barros Soares, Luis Henrique & Urquiaga, Segundo & Boddey, Robert M., 2016. "Impact of the intensification of beef production in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions and land use," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 86-96.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedro Henrique Presumido & Fernando Sousa & Artur Gonçalves & Tatiane Cristina Dal Bosco & Manuel Feliciano, 2018. "Environmental Impacts of the Beef Production Chain in the Northeast of Portugal Using Life Cycle Assessment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-19, October.
    2. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael & Capper, Judith L. & Johnson, Kristen A., 2014. "Optimizing diet and pasture management to improve sustainability of U.S. beef production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Tiruwork B. Tibebu & Eric Hittinger & Qing Miao & Eric Williams, 2024. "Adoption Model Choice Affects the Optimal Subsidy for Residential Solar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Hongbo Duan & Gupeng Zhang & Shouyang Wang & Ying Fan, 2018. "Balancing China’s climate damage risk against emission control costs," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 387-403, March.
    5. Luca Gerotto & Paolo Pellizzari, 2021. "A replication of Pindyck’s willingness to pay: on the efforts required to obtain results," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(5), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Fremstad, Anders & Paul, Mark, 2022. "Neoliberalism and climate change: How the free-market myth has prevented climate action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    7. Rongrong Xu & Yongxiang Wu & Ming Chen & Xuan Zhang & Wei Wu & Long Tan & Gaoxu Wang & Yi Xu & Bing Yan & Yuedong Xia, 2019. "Calculation of the contribution rate of China’s hydraulic science and technology based on a feedforward neural network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Wenz, Leonie, 2020. "The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    9. Tobias Kranz & Hamza Bennani & Matthias Neuenkirch, 2024. "Monetary Policy and Climate Change: Challenges and the Role of Major Central Banks," Research Papers in Economics 2024-01, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    10. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Franziska Piontek & Matthias Kalkuhl & Elmar Kriegler & Anselm Schultes & Marian Leimbach & Ottmar Edenhofer & Nico Bauer, 2019. "Economic Growth Effects of Alternative Climate Change Impact Channels in Economic Modeling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1357-1385, August.
    12. Gregory Casey & Stephie Fried & Ethan Goode, 2023. "Projecting the Impact of Rising Temperatures: The Role of Macroeconomic Dynamics," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 71(3), pages 688-718, September.
    13. Alfredo R.M. Rosete & Hendrik Van den Berg, 2019. "Macroeconomic Policy in an Environmentally-Constrained Economy: A Dialectical Materialist Application of the Harrod Growth Model," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 51(4), pages 544-552, December.
    14. Baarsch, Florent & Granadillos, Jessie R. & Hare, William & Knaus, Maria & Krapp, Mario & Schaeffer, Michiel & Lotze-Campen, Hermann, 2020. "The impact of climate change on incomes and convergence in Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    15. Adam Michael Bauer & Cristian Proistosescu & Gernot Wagner, 2023. "Carbon Dioxide as a Risky Asset," CESifo Working Paper Series 10278, CESifo.
    16. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    17. Wu, Bingqing & Sarker, Bhaba R. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2015. "Sustainable energy from biomass: Biomethane manufacturing plant location and distribution problem," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 597-608.
    18. Koiry, Subrata & Huang, Wei, 2023. "Do ecological protection approaches affect total factor productivity change of cropland production in Sweden?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    19. Ganesh, Ibram, 2016. "Electrochemical conversion of carbon dioxide into renewable fuel chemicals – The role of nanomaterials and the commercialization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1269-1297.
    20. Matthew Agarwala & Josh Martin, 2022. "Environmentally-adjusted productivity measures for the UK," Working Papers 028, The Productivity Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.