Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study

Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study Profitability and environmental benefits of beef cattle raised on natural pasture or combined with soybean in tropical biomes need to be better evaluated. The objective of this research was to simulate and evaluate three common pastured beef grazing systems in southern Brazil, estimating profitability and the environmental impacts of carbon footprint (CF) measured as kg of CO2 equivalent per kg of body weight produced (BWP), water footprint (kg of water used/kg of BWP) and energy footprint (MJ of energy used/kg of BWP) using the Integrated Farm System Model version 4.2. Simulations were run for Angus beef cattle raised on natural pasture (NP), natural pasture with low levels of grain supplementation (NPS), and NPS combined with soybean production (NPSC). Net animal weight produced (kg/ha/year) increased 7.9% for NPS and NPSC when compared with the NP system. Natural pasture production costs per hectare were lower (US$ 114) than that of NPS (US$ 126) and NPSC (US$ 233), while NP had a net return per hectare only 2% greater than NPS. Even though the gross income from animal sales was 5% higher in NPS than NP, the elevated cost of purchased feeds reduced net return per hectare. While costs were higher for NPSC, diversifying with soybean production, a high value commodity for cash sale, was profitable resulting in 44% and 47% greater net return per hectare than NP and NPS, respectively. Natural pasture with low supplementation (NPS) decreased CF by 2% when compared with NP due to faster weight gain from supplementation despite higher emissions from feed production. Furthermore, CF was also 6% lower for natural pasture combined with soybeans (NPSC) compared with NPS. However, the energy and water footprints and erosion increased with the greater use of both purchased feed and inputs required for feed and cash crop production. It can be challenging to increase beef cattle productivity and diversification to lower GHG emissions while minimizing water and energy use and soil erosion. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agricultural Systems Elsevier

Grazing supplementation and crop diversification benefits for southern Brazil beef: A case study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/grazing-supplementation-and-crop-diversification-benefits-for-southern-fHUssoNWWd
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0308-521x
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.009
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Profitability and environmental benefits of beef cattle raised on natural pasture or combined with soybean in tropical biomes need to be better evaluated. The objective of this research was to simulate and evaluate three common pastured beef grazing systems in southern Brazil, estimating profitability and the environmental impacts of carbon footprint (CF) measured as kg of CO2 equivalent per kg of body weight produced (BWP), water footprint (kg of water used/kg of BWP) and energy footprint (MJ of energy used/kg of BWP) using the Integrated Farm System Model version 4.2. Simulations were run for Angus beef cattle raised on natural pasture (NP), natural pasture with low levels of grain supplementation (NPS), and NPS combined with soybean production (NPSC). Net animal weight produced (kg/ha/year) increased 7.9% for NPS and NPSC when compared with the NP system. Natural pasture production costs per hectare were lower (US$ 114) than that of NPS (US$ 126) and NPSC (US$ 233), while NP had a net return per hectare only 2% greater than NPS. Even though the gross income from animal sales was 5% higher in NPS than NP, the elevated cost of purchased feeds reduced net return per hectare. While costs were higher for NPSC, diversifying with soybean production, a high value commodity for cash sale, was profitable resulting in 44% and 47% greater net return per hectare than NP and NPS, respectively. Natural pasture with low supplementation (NPS) decreased CF by 2% when compared with NP due to faster weight gain from supplementation despite higher emissions from feed production. Furthermore, CF was also 6% lower for natural pasture combined with soybeans (NPSC) compared with NPS. However, the energy and water footprints and erosion increased with the greater use of both purchased feed and inputs required for feed and cash crop production. It can be challenging to increase beef cattle productivity and diversification to lower GHG emissions while minimizing water and energy use and soil erosion.

Journal

Agricultural SystemsElsevier

Published: May 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off