Large-scale pasture restoration may not be the best option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil

Abstract

Cattle ranching accounts for 44% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the land use sector in Brazil. In response, Brazil has proposed a massive pasture restoration program that aspires to make ranching more competitive while at the same time reducing associated GHG emissions. Pasture restoration, however, is only one of several intensification options that could be employed to achieve these goals. Here we analyze potential production, economic return and GHG emissions from an intensification strategy based mainly on pasture restoration and compare its productive, economic and GHG emissions performances with intensification options more focused on supplemental feeding (grain-feed supplementation of grazing animals and animal finishing in feedlots). To this end, we developed a multi-sectoral, deterministic simulation model of the ranching system and applied it to Mato Grosso state, the largest producer and earliest adopter of intensive production. To account for GHG emissions, we performed a life cycle analysis of a complete beef production cycle. Our results show that an intensification strategy focused more heavily on pasture restoration does reduce GHG emissions but produces the least favorable economic and GHG emissions outcomes when compared with a range of supplemental feeding alternatives. In view of these results, Brazil should seek a more diversified strategies for cattle intensification in its climate mitigation policy.

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

“…Deforestation restrictions, especially in the Amazon biome, increasing agricultural land use and appreciation, and the need to control pasture degradation and greenhouse gas emissions have all contributed to producers reconsidering traditional extensive beef grazing [69]. Our results were consistent with the SimPec model of Mato Grosso state Nelore cattle which showed grain supplementation had more favorable reduction in CF compared to pasture restoration [70]. However, improving degraded pasture and grain supplementation may not be enough to reduce total and per hectare GHG emissions.…”

Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon

“…(II) We calculated the average productivity using regional estimates of soybean and pasture yield losses due to rainfall reduction caused by Amazon biome-wide deforestation 47 (Supplementary Section 1.6). (III) We projected productivity change until 2050 adjusting future soybean yield projections (3.7 ton/hectare) 50 and pasture productivity projections 51 (2.9 arroba/hectare) 51 by the average productivity losses calculated in step II. (IV) We computed annual revenues in US$ per hectare using current soybean and cattle arroba prices (US$ 302.58 per ton and US$ 201.50 per arroba, respectively) and projected soybean and pasture productivity for each of the two deforestation scenarios with and without decreases in yields.…”

Options to achieve net-zero emissions from agriculture and land use changes in Latin America and the Caribbean

“…Larger-scale studies of livestock intensification have assessed the consequences of pastures restoration (Strassburg et al 2014, De Olivera Silva et al 2018, or both pastures restoration and more concentrated feed, with concentrated feed seen as more efficient (Batista et al 2019). The large-scale studies consider land-use change emissions in different ways, although they do not always try to leverage the possibilities of reforestation.…”