Beyond CO2: Multiple Ecosystem Services From Ecologically Intensive Grazing Landscapes of South America

Abstract

Sustainability assessments to inform the design of multifunctional grazing landscapes need to look beyond greenhouse gas emissions to simultaneously embrace other social and environmental criteria. Here I briefly examine trade-offs and synergies between the productivity of graze-based livestock systems and the environment, and share a few generic guidelines to design pathways for the ecological intensification of livestock systems following agroecological principles. I draw from experience on livestock farming in the Rio de la Plata Grassland Biome of South America (Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil). Livestock systems based on native grasslands in this region may have greater carbon footprints (13–29 kg CO2 eq. kg LW−1) than intensive grass-feedlot systems in the region (9–14 kg CO2 eq. kg LW−1) or the average range reported for OECD countries (c. 10–20 kg CO2 eq. kg LW−1) when calculated per unit product, but only 20% greater when expressed on an area basis. Yet they use less external energy (10x) or nitrogen inputs (5x) per kg live weight (LW) produced, provide ecosystem services of local and global importance, such as carbon storage, habitat protection for biodiversity, watershed regulation, clean water, food and textiles, livelihoods and local cultures, and provide better living conditions for grazing animals. Traditional graze-based systems are less economically attractive than intensive livestock or grain production and they are being replaced by such activities, with negative social and environmental consequences. An ecological intensification (EI) of graze-based livestock systems is urgently needed to ensure economic profits while minimising social-ecological trade-offs on multifunctional landscapes. Examples of such EI systems exist in the region that exhibit synergies between economic and environmental goals, but a broad and lasting transition towards sustainable multifunctional landscapes based on agroecological principles requires (co-)innovation at both technical and institutional levels.

Production performance, nutrient use efficiency, and predicted enteric methane emissions in dairy cows under confinement or grazing management system

“…Our meta-analysis revealed only a small difference in predicted CH 4 production between confinement and grazing systems, and no changes in CH 4 yield and CH 4 intensity ( Table 4 ). However, a fair comparison and evaluation of dairy management systems should also consider greenhouse gas emissions from crop production, transportation, and manure management, as well as ecosystem services provided by grazing dairies ( Fredeen et al, 2013 ; Tittonell, 2021 ), which was beyond the scope of our study. Nevertheless, results from studies that have compared the carbon footprint of grazing and confinement dairy systems are not consistent.…”

“…Pasture-based systems are known to perform multiple ecosystem services including food production, climate regulation, pollination, nutrient cycling, and erosion control ( Sala et al, 2017 ; Tittonell, 2021 ), as well as use of marginal lands not suitable for tillage and crop production ( Wang et al, 2021 ). Grazing ruminants can also express their natural behaviors while on pasture ( Charlton et al, 2011 ), and previous research revealed that dairy cows were more motivated to go outside to graze than stay indoors and consume a total mixed ration (TMR) offered immediately after the afternoon milking ( von Keyserlingk et al, 2017 ).…”

“…There is an ongoing interest to better understand differences in nutrient use efficiency and environmental performance of confinement versus grazing dairy systems. However, due to the limited number of studies that had simultaneously investigated the economic, social, and environmental outcomes associated with confinement and pasture-based farms ( Tittonell, 2021 ), a head-to-head comparison between systems is challenging. O’Neill et al (2011) reported reductions in CH 4 production (–37%), CH 4 yield (–11%), and CH 4 intensity (–13%) in dairy cows grazing perennial ryegrass ( Lolium perenne L.) herbage compared with those fed TMR.…”

Rangeland afforestation is not a natural climate solution

“…Of the ecosystem services provided by rangelands, the provisioning services of forage and livestock production are the most widely recognized, but critical regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services also exist. Despite their ecological and economic importance, rangelands continue to be undervalued (Vetter 2020; Tittonell 2021) and are frequently converted to alternative land uses with little regard for the associated loss of ecosystem services (Briske and Coppock 2023). This makes rangelands especially vulnerable to afforestation initiatives financed by C offset markets and supported by restoration and conservation programs.…”

Supplement feed efficiency of growing beef cattle grazing nativeCamposgrasslands during winter: a collated analysis

“…The Campos are subtropical humid highly diverse native grasslands that foster extensive sheep and cattle production across the Pampa biome in Uruguay, southern Brazil, and center-eastern Argentina. These systems are currently facing the challenge of both increasing profitability and at the same time maintaining native grasslands as their main feed source in order to keep low system-wide costs ( Jaurena et al, 2021 ), be resilient against extreme climatic events ( Briske, 2017 ), and preserve the various valuable ecosystem services they provide ( Modernel et al, 2016 ; Tittonell, 2021 ).…”