IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p4229-d1396809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptive Grazing of Native Grasslands Provides Ecosystem Services and Reduces Economic Instability for Livestock Systems in the Flooding Pampa, Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth J. Jacobo

    (Área de Agroecología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Ulises J. Martínez Ortiz

    (Departamento de Economía, Desarrollo y Planeamiento Agrícola, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Santiago M. Cotroneo

    (Área de Agroecología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Adriana M. Rodríguez

    (Departamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

Abstract

There is a widespread concern about the negative impact of intensive livestock farming on climate change and biodiversity loss. We analyzed the trade-off between meat production and environmental variables related to global warming—energy consumption, use efficiency of energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon footprint, and GHG balance—of two alternative intensification strategies of livestock farming in the Flooding Pampa: conventional intensification (CI) based on external inputs, and ecological intensification (EI) based on maintaining native grassland in good condition through adaptive multi-paddock grazing (AMPG). We also explored the relationship between meat production and the economic variables gross margin and its year-to-year variation. Energy consumption was positively correlated with meat production (ρ = 0.95, p = 0.0117), and EI farms consumed less fuel energy and showed higher energy use efficiency than CI farms (294 ± 152 vs. 2740 ± 442 MJ ha −1 y −1 , 38.4 ± 28.8 vs. 1.23 ± 0.13 MJ kg LW −1 y −1 , p < 0.05, respectively). GHG emissions and carbon footprint did not show significant differences between EI and CI strategies. As soil carbon sequestration was significantly higher in EI farms than in CI farms (1676 ± 304 vs. −433 ± 343 kg CO 2eq ha −1 y −1 , p < 0.05), GHG balance resulted almost neutral and higher under the EI strategy (−693 ± 732 vs. −3520 ± 774 kg CO 2eq ha −1 y −1 , p < 0.05). CI strategy obtained higher meat production but a similar gross margin to the EI strategy and a more unstable economic return, as the coefficient of variation in the gross margin doubled that of the EI strategy (84 + 13.3 vs. 43 + 2.6, respectively, p < 0.05). Ecological intensification of cattle production in the Flooding Pampa demonstrates the potential for a positive relationship between individual cattle farmers’ profits and overall societal benefits, as reflected in improved environmental performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth J. Jacobo & Ulises J. Martínez Ortiz & Santiago M. Cotroneo & Adriana M. Rodríguez, 2024. "Adaptive Grazing of Native Grasslands Provides Ecosystem Services and Reduces Economic Instability for Livestock Systems in the Flooding Pampa, Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4229-:d:1396809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4229/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4229/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Mapp, Harry P. & Hardin, Michael L. & Walker, Odell L. & Persaud, Tillak, 1979. "Analysis Of Risk Management Strategies For Agricultural Producers," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 278205, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Ruggia, A. & Dogliotti, S. & Aguerre, V. & Albicette, M.M. & Albin, A. & Blumetto, O. & Cardozo, G. & Leoni, C. & Quintans, G. & Scarlato, S. & Tittonell, P. & Rossing, W.A.H., 2021. "The application of ecologically intensive principles to the systemic redesign of livestock farms on native grasslands: A case of co-innovation in Rocha, Uruguay," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Harry P. Mapp & Michael L. Hardin & Odell L. Walker & Tillak Persaud, 1979. "Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Producers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 1071-1077.
    5. 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.
    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. Hammida, Mustapha & Eidman, Vernon R., 1991. "Livestock And Poultry Production Risk In The United States," Staff Papers 14016, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Bechtel, Amos I. & Young, Douglas L., 1999. "The Importance Of Using Farm Level Risk Estimates In Crp Enrollment Decisions," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35717, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Groover, Gordon E., 1989. "An Evaluation Of Production And Marketing Strategies: A Portfolio Approach," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270694, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. van Zyl, J. & Groenewald, J. A., 1986. "A Comparison Of Certain Decision-Making Techniques Under Risk - An Empirical Investigation Of Maize Cultivar Selection," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 25(1), February.
    5. Cheng, Mei-luan & Gloy, Brent A., 2008. "The Paradox of Risk Balancing: Do Risk-reducing Policies Lead to More Risk for Farmers?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6546, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Osaki, Mauro & Batalha, Mário Otavio, 2014. "Optimization model of agricultural production system in grain farms under risk, in Sorriso, Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 178-188.
    7. Vieth, Gary R. & Suppapanya, Pramote, 1996. "An Evaluation Of Selected Decision Models: A Case Of Crop Choice In Northern Thailand," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Hisham S. El-Osta, 2018. "Strategies to Manage Risk and their Role in Impacting Economic Performance among Farm Households," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 49-64, March.
    9. Yanyuan Zhang & Xintong Wu, 2023. "Risk Management Effects of Insurance Purchase and Organization Participation: Which Is More Effective?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Teague, Paul W. & Lee, John G., 1988. "Risk Efficient Perennial Crop Selection: A Motad Approach To Citrus Production," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(2), pages 1-8, December.
    11. Adesina, A. A. & Ouattara, A. D., 2000. "Risk and agricultural systems in northern Cote d'Ivoire," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 17-32, October.
    12. Gouzaye, Amadou & Vitale, Jeffrey D. & Epplin, Francis M. & Adam, Brian D. & Stoecker, Arthur L., 2013. "The Value of Price Stabilization Policy for Cotton Producers in Burkina Faso," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 142882, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Marina V. Korshikova & Irina P. Belikova & Tatyana I. Sakhnyuk & Pavel A. Sakhnyuk & Inna G. Svistunova, 2016. "Methodological Provision of Active Management of Economic Risk in Agrarian Business," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 113-124.
    14. Boisvert, Richard N., 1985. "The Role Of Alternative Risk Programming Models In Empirical Research," Regional Research Projects > 1985: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 24-27, 1985, Charleston, South Carolina 271793, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    15. Dongli Wu & Shan He & Lingui Qin & Jingyue Feng & Yu Gao, 2024. "Role of Policy-Supported Hog Insurance in Promoting Green Total Factor Productivity: The Case of China during 2005–2021," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Hatch, L. Upton & Atwood, Joseph A. & Segar, James, 1989. "An Application Of Safety-First Probability Limits In A Discrete Stochastic Farm Management Programming Model," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-8, July.
    17. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Ze Han & Wei Song & Xiangzheng Deng, 2016. "Responses of Ecosystem Service to Land Use Change in Qinghai Province," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-16, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4229-:d:1396809. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.