Tradeoffs in the quest for climate smart agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso, Brazil

Abstract

Low productivity cattle ranching, with its linkages to rural poverty, deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, remains one of the largest sustainability challenges in Brazil and has impacts worldwide. There is a nearly universal call to intensify extensive beef cattle production systems to spare land for crop production and nature and to meet Brazil's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to reducing global climate change. However, different interventions aimed at the intensification of livestock systems in Brazil may involve substantial social and environmental tradeoffs. Here we examine these tradeoffs using a whole-farm model calibrated for the Brazilian agricultural frontier state of Mato Grosso, one of the largest soybean and beef cattle production regions in the world. Specifically, we compare the costs and benefits of a typical extensive, continuously grazed cattle system relative to a specialized soybean production system and two improved cattle management strategies (rotational grazing and integrated soybean-cattle) under different climate scenarios. We found clear tradeoffs in GHG and nitrogen emissions, climate resilience, and water and energy use across these systems. Relative to continuously grazed or rotationally grazed cattle systems, the integreated soybean-cattle system showed higher food production and lower GHG emissions per unit of human digestible protein, as well as increased resilience under climate change (both in terms of productivity and financial returns). All systems suffered productivity and profitability losses under severe climate change, highlighting the need for climate smart agricultural development strategies in the region. By underscoring the economic feasibility of improving the performance of cattle systems, and by quantifying the tradeoffs of each option, our results are useful for directing agricultural and climate policy.

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

“…The growth and development of crops and forages are predicted daily based on the availability of water and nutrients in the soil, ambient temperature and solar radiation absorbed by the system [ 27 ]. Grazing animals are kept outdoors throughout the year, but pasture growth may not be available for some periods of the year, so feeding strategy is defined by the groups of animals present in the pasture and by the amount of time they have access to the pasture.…”

Forage and animal production on palisadegrass pastures growing in monoculture or as a component of integrated crop–livestock–forestry systems

“…Within this context, Brazilian agriculture has global relevance due to the large proportion of the world's tropical forests, water and biodiversity (Gil et al, ). Agricultural areas bordering environmentally sensitive regions are also responsible for the greatest beef (ABIEC, ) and grain (CONAB, ) production in Brazil.…”

Assessing the economic viability of integrated crop−livestock systems in Mato Grosso, Brazil

“…The financial accounting approach used here, which is based on observed outcomes, is also a useful complement to process models, which predict outcomes based on inputs (e.g. Gil et al ., 2018 for the same region).…”

“…Prior studies in Brazil, especially in the Cerrado, have also shown that iCL systems can increase production efficiency since they contribute to: (i) improvements in soil quality; (ii) water conservation; (iii) an increase of animal performance; and (iv) a reduction in GHGs per unit of food produced (Kluthcouski et al ., 2003; Macedo, 2009; Vilela et al ., 2011; Salton et al ., 2014). What is less understood is how economically viable these productions systems are in the Legal Amazon region of Brazil, particularly in light of their potentially high initial investment costs (Gil et al ., 2018) and (Appendix 1). This lack of generalized information about the economic performance of iCL in the country's largest cattle and crop production region may help explain its low adoption rates, despite fairly high levels of government support (Martha Júnior et al ., 2011; Vilela et al ., 2011; De Oliveira et al ., 2013; Salton et al ., 2014; Reis et al ., 2016).…”