Abstract
Against the backdrop of changing production conditions and market requirements, it seems time has come to rethink Brazil’s beef production systems. We analyse the economic and environmental performance of three beef production systems: classic beef production system (CB), and two types of silvopastoral systems: the integrated crop-livestock-forestry system (ICLFS) and the natural regeneration system (NR) in a comparative case study analysis. We find that, though costs of production are the lowest for CB, only the ICLFS and NR case studies are generating long-term profits. While greenhouse gas emissions per kg live weight added are lowest in ICLFS, followed by NR and CB, per hectare (ha) emissions are highest in NR, followed by ICLFS and CB. Considering the system’s carbon removal, NR and potentially ICLFS are sequestering more than releasing. Additionally, the land required to produce beef is lowest in NR, followed by ICLFS and CB. Considering the additional outputs produced by ICLFS and NR, they showcase the potential of multifunctional production systems for future scenarios, where land scarcity puts land-demanding production systems, such as beef, under pressure. The three production systems perform differently depending on the indicators analysed. How they will reply to future challenges depends on the location and the specific environment. Yet, from the analysed systems, CB is the least sustainable, economically and environmentally.
Abstract
Against the backdrop of changing production conditions and market requirements, it seems time has come to rethink Brazil’s beef production systems. We analyse the economic and environmental performance of three beef production systems: classic beef production system (CB), and two types of silvopastoral systems: the integrated crop-livestock-forestry system (ICLFS) and the natural regeneration system (NR) in a comparative case study analysis. We find that, though costs of production are the lowest for CB, only the ICLFS and NR case studies are generating long-term profits. While greenhouse gas emissions per kg live weight added are lowest in ICLFS, followed by NR and CB, per hectare (ha) emissions are highest in NR, followed by ICLFS and CB. Considering the system’s carbon removal, NR and potentially ICLFS are sequestering more than releasing. Additionally, the land required to produce beef is lowest in NR, followed by ICLFS and CB. Considering the additional outputs produced by ICLFS and NR, they showcase the potential of multifunctional production systems for future scenarios, where land scarcity puts land-demanding production systems, such as beef, under pressure. The three production systems perform differently depending on the indicators analysed. How they will reply to future challenges depends on the location and the specific environment. Yet, from the analysed systems, CB is the least sustainable, economically and environmentally.
Related posts:
Technological frontier in Uruguay’s beef cattle production: An analysis of technical efficiency and its main drivers
What would it look like? Visualizing a future US Corn Belt landscape with more table food production
Silvopastoral systems in the Upper Atlantic Forest of Argentina: what type of farms adopt them and how?
Dynamics of nutrient removal and N2O emissions in an ecological ditch with different plant combinations
On-farm greenhouse gas emissions and soil carbon stocks of a soybean‒maize system
Tarping and mulching effects on crop yields, profitability, and soil nutrients in a continuous no-till organic vegetable production system