The Expansion of Intensive Beef Farming to the Brazilian Amazon

Vale, Petterson Molina; Gibbs, Holly K.; Vale, Ricardo; Christie, Matthew; Florence, Eduardo; Munger, Jacob; Sabaini, Derquiane

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.006

Cited by 83 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, even though beef productivity more than doubled, both pasture re-seeding/fertilization and grain supplementation models had greater water footprint (kg/kg cattle BW) and pasture re-seeding/fertilization has greater energy and nitrogen footprints compared to extensive pasture, underscoring the potential environmental impacts that such initial pasture-based intensification entails. If Brazil follows the U.S. beef intensification pathway toward more industrial feedlots, there could be increases in GHG's, nitrogen losses, and energy use per hectare, water footprint, and also negative external impacts to groundwater and watersheds [75], even though feedlots have been shown to reduce deforestation [76].…”

Section: Carbon Emissions Water Energy and Nitrogen Impacts Of Intmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improve Pasture or Feed Grain? Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Profitability, and Resource Use for Nelore Beef Cattle in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon Biomes

Molossi

Hoshide

Pedrosa

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic development, international food and feed demand, and government policies have converted Brazil’s natural ecosystems into agricultural land. The Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) was evaluated using production, economic, and weather data collected on two cooperating farms in the Legal Amazon and Cerrado biomes in the Midwest state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Three sustainable agricultural intensification strategies, namely grain supplementation, pasture re-seeding, and pasture fertilization were simulated in IFSM with double the beef cattle stocking density compared to extensive grazing. Livestock dry matter consumption simulated in IFSM was similar for pasture grazing estimates and actual feed consumed by beef cattle on the two collaborating farms. Grain supplementation best balanced beef production and profitability with lower carbon footprint compared to extensive grazing, followed by pasture fertilization and pasture re-seeding. However, pasture re-seeding and fertilization had greater use of water and energy and more nitrogen losses. Human edible livestock feed use was greatest for grain supplementation compared to other modeled systems. While grain supplementation appears more favorable economically and environmentally, greater use of human edible livestock feed may compete with future human food needs. Pasture intensification had greater human edible feed conversion efficiency, but its greater natural resource use may be challenging.

show abstract

Section: Carbon Emissions Water Energy and Nitrogen Impacts Of Intmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improve Pasture or Feed Grain? Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Profitability, and Resource Use for Nelore Beef Cattle in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon Biomes

Molossi

Hoshide

Pedrosa

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Livestock grazing has long been associated with biodiversity loss in plant and wildlife communities, the dispersal of invasive species, degradation of soil structure, and desertification (Daubenmire, 1940;Savory, 1983;Allen et al, 1991;Savory and Butterworth, 1999;Drewry, 2006;Harrison and Bardgett, 2010;Wirsenius et al, 2010;Alkemade et al, 2013). Cattle grazing and livestock feed production are responsible for >65% of the deforestation that has taken place in Brazil and other tropical and subtropical regions (Vale et al, 2019). Animal agriculture is an important source of ammonia, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) [Parris, 2011; USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2017; Food Agriculture Organization, 2019] and blue water withdrawals [USGS (U.S. Geological Service), 2005; Rotz et al, 2019].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Differences in Livestock Management Practices Influence Environmental Impacts?

Kleppel

2020

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbivore-carnivore interactions are fundamental to grassland ecosystem functionality and to the human cultures that have long depended on these ecosystems for their nutrition. However, a large literature has developed during the past century indicating that animal agriculture is responsible for numerous negative environmental impacts. In this paper, I review literature on some of the environmental impacts of two different livestock management approaches, industrial-conventional (IC) management and regenerative-multi-paddock (RM) management. I consider the null hypothesis that the environmental impacts of ruminant livestock production are independent of the approach used to manage animals and grazing lands. It evident in the literature that managed grazing ecosystems are complex, and for certain system attributes, such as forage quality and plant community structure, the better management system is difficult to discern. In other areas definitive differences in impacts appear clearly management dependent. For instance, the soils of RM grasslands exhibit higher microbial biomass and diversity, and higher fungal: bacterial ratios than IC soils. Several impacts associated with livestock production appear to have less to do with grazing, per se, and more to do with support factors, such as feed production and manure management. The compilation of data from numerous sources suggests that RM management may reduce blue withdrawals and GHG emissions by >50%, relative to IC management. Accumulating data also suggest that a significant portion of anthropogenic CO 2-eq emissions can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil by applying RM management practices. Finally, it is suggested that while research design may affect the outcomes of some studies, the quality and quantity of the science may not resolve many discrepancies in the data. It is suggested that the viability and sustainability of animal agriculture may depend upon broadening the goals of practitioners to include both food production and the restoration and protection of agricultural ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…As these systems cover the majority of cattle operations in Pará, it is intriguing that, under such conditions of poor pasture management, clean pastures still expanded 16.5%, herds doubled (from 10.2 to 20.2), and exports of beef and live cattle steadily increased (Pacheco and Poccard-Chapuis 2012;IBGE 2016;Comex-Stat/MDIC 2016). While pressure over the beef production chain played an important role in reducing the expansion of pastures over newly deforested lands, only gains in productivity could have sustained the observed increases in cattle production; however, as various authors have already emphasized, these changes are restricted and conditioned to specific contexts (Bowman et al 2012;Pacheco and Poccard-Chapuis 2012;Vale et al 2019).…”

Section: Systems and Pasture Management Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings help explain the spatial distribution of high-impact systems found in Pará. Still important is the expansion of confinements in increasing cattle productivity: between 2009 and 2012, concomitantly with increased pressure against deforestation, confinements expanded in the biome, particularly in Rondonia and Pará, where new 42 confinements emerged in the period (Vale et al 2019).…”

Section: Spatial Diversity Of Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity of cattle raising systems and its effects over forest regrowth in a core region of cattle production in the Brazilian Amazon

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roughly 60% of all deforested lands in the Brazilian Amazon are covered with pastures, putting cattle raising in evidence as a major driver of deforestation and also of forests' regrowth. Still, the role of cattle raising diversity in the landscape dynamics of this region remains poorly understood. To contribute to this discussion, we combined data from semi-structured interviews and quantitative spatially explicit methods to characterize and spatialize cattle raising systems and explore the effects of this diversity over secondary vegetation between 2004 and 2014 in Pará, a hotspot of deforestation and core region of cattle production. We quantified the use of different pasture management strategies to classify small-and large-scale operations into systems with high or low impact against pastures' degradation. High-impact systems were mapped in regions with consolidated infrastructure and high accumulated deforestation, where they expanded. On the contrary, low-impact systems were more widespread and found near forest frontiers, shrinking over time. High-impact systems had less secondary vegetation, while under low-impact systems, as a result of strategies with little or no effect against degradation, the historical pattern of concentration of this cover prevailed. Better infrastructure and access to markets as well as higher accumulated deforestation are underlying conditions related to the emergence of intensification and, as it is still unclear whether intensification is indeed capable of sparing land, the expansion of intensive cattle raising systems has the potential to configure landscapes with reduced forested areas, either primary or secondary.

show abstract

The Expansion of Intensive Beef Farming to the Brazilian Amazon

Cited by 83 publications

References 34 publications

Improve Pasture or Feed Grain? Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Profitability, and Resource Use for Nelore Beef Cattle in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon Biomes

Improve Pasture or Feed Grain? Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Profitability, and Resource Use for Nelore Beef Cattle in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon Biomes

Do Differences in Livestock Management Practices Influence Environmental Impacts?

Diversity of cattle raising systems and its effects over forest regrowth in a core region of cattle production in the Brazilian Amazon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About