Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:50:55.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of pasture-based beef cattle production systems in the tropical region (Atlantic Forest biome)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2020

P. P. A. Oliveira Open the ORCID record for P. P. A. Oliveira [Opens in a new window] ,
A. Berndt ,
A. F. Pedroso ,
T. C. Alves ,
J. R. M. Pezzopane ,
L. S. Sakamoto ,
F. L. Henrique  and
P. H. M. Rodrigues
P. P. A. Oliveira*
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
A. Berndt
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
A. F. Pedroso
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
T. C. Alves
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
J. R. M. Pezzopane
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
L. S. Sakamoto
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
F. L. Henrique
Affiliation:
Embrapa Southeast Livestock, Washington Luiz Road, Km 234, São Carlos13560-970, SP, Brazil
P. H. M. Rodrigues
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, Duque de Caxias North Ave, Pirassununga13635-900, SP, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The production of beef cattle in the Atlantic Forest biome mostly takes place in pastoral production systems. There are millions of hectares covered with pastures in this biome, including degraded pasture (DP), and only small area of the original Atlantic Forest has been preserved in tropics, implying that actions must be taken by the livestock sector to improve sustainability. Intensification makes it possible to produce the same amount, or more beef, in a smaller area; however, the environmental impacts must be assessed. Regarding climate change, the C dynamics is essential to define which beef cattle systems are sustainable. The objectives of this study were to investigate the C balance (t CO2e./ha per year), the intensity of C emission (kg CO2e./kg BW or carcass) and the C footprint (t CO2e./ha per year) of pasture-based beef cattle production systems, inside the farm gate and considering the inputs. The results were used to calculate the number of trees to be planted in beef cattle production systems to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The GHG emission and C balance, for 2 years, were calculated based on the global warming potential (GWP) of AR4 and GWP of AR5. Forty-eight steers were allotted to four grazing systems: DP, irrigated high stocking rate pasture (IHS), rainfed high stocking rate pasture (RHS) and rainfed medium stocking rate pasture (RMS). The rainfed systems (RHS and RMS) presented the lowest C footprints (−1.22 and 0.45 t CO2e./ha per year, respectively), with C credits to RMS when using the GWP of AR4. The IHS system showed less favorable results for C footprint (−15.71 t CO2e./ha per year), but results were better when emissions were expressed in relation to the annual BW gain (−10.21 kg CO2e./kg BW) because of its higher yield. Although the DP system had an intermediate result for C footprint (−6.23 t CO2e./ha per year), the result was the worst (−30.21 CO2e./kg BW) when the index was expressed in relation to the annual BW gain, because in addition to GHG emissions from the animals in the system there were also losses in the annual rate of C sequestration. Notably, the intensification in pasture management had a land-saving effect (3.63 ha for IHS, 1.90 for RHS and 1.19 for RMS), contributing to the preservation of the tropical forest.

Keywords

sustainabilitysoil carbon stockemission intensityland-saving effectmitigation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue S3: Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference (GGAA 2019), 4 - 8 August 2019, Iguassu Falls, Brazil , September 2020 , pp. s427 - s437
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABIEC – Brazilian Association of Beef Exporters Industries 2019. Beef report livestock profile in Brazil. Retrieved on 22 July 2020 from http://abiec.com.br/en/publicacoes/beef-report-2019-2/Google Scholar
Andrén, O, Steen, E and Rajkai, K 1992. Modelling the effects of moisture on barley straw and root decomposition in the field. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24, 727–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berndt, A, Boland, T, Deighton, MH, Gere, JI, Grainger, C, Hegarty, RS, Iwaasa, AD, Koolaard, JP, Lassey, KR, Luo, D, Martin, RJ, Martin, C, Moate, PJ, Molano, G, Pinares-Patiño, C, Ribaux, BE, Swainson, NM, Waghorn, GC, Williams, SRO and Lambert, MG (ed.) 2014. Guidelines for use of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique to measure enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, NI, NZ.Google Scholar
Bayer, C, Martin-Neto, L, Mielniczuk, J, Dieckow, J and Amado, TJC 2006. C and N stocks and the role of molecular recalcitrance and organomineral interaction in stabilizing soil organic matter in a subtropical Acrisol managed under no-tillage. Geoderma 133, 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2005.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boadi, DA and Wittenberg, K 2002. Methane production from dairy and beef heifers fed farages differing in nutrient density using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) trace gas technique. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.4141/A01-017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braz, SP, Urquiaga, S, Alves, BJR, Jantalia, CP, Guimarães, AP, Santos, CA, Santos, SC, Pinheiro, EFM and Boddey, RM 2013. Soil carbon stocks under productive and degraded Brachiaria pastures in the Brazilian Cerrado. Soil Science Society of America Journal 77, 914–928. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2012.0269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craine, JM, Elmore, AJ, Wang, L, Aranibar, J, Bauters, M, Boeckx, P, Brooke, EC, Dawes, MA, Delzon, S, Fajardo, A, Fang, Y, Fujiyoshi, L, Gray, A, Guerrieri, R, Gundale, MJ, Hawke, DJ, Hietz, P, Jonard, M, Kearsley, E, Kenzo, T, Makarov, M, Marañón-Jiménez, S, McGlynn, TP, McNeil, BE, Mosher, EG, Nelson, DM, Peri, PL, Roggy, JC, DeMott, RS, Song, M, Szpak, P, Templer, PH, Colff, DV, Werner, C, Xu, X, Yang, Y, Yu, G and Zmudczyńska-Skarbek, K 2018. Isotopic evidence for oligotrophication of terrestrial ecosystems, Nature Ecology & Evolution 2, 1735–1744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunha, CS, Lopes, NL, Veloso, CM, Jacovine, LAG, Tomich, TR, Pereira, LGR and Marcondes, MI 2016. Greenhouse gases inventory and carbon balance of two dairy systems obtained from two methane-estimation methods. Science of the Total Environment 571, 744–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Bona, FD, Bayer, C, Bergamaschi, H and Dieckow, J 2006. Soil organic carbon in sprinkler irrigation systems under no-till and conventional tillage. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 30, 911–920. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832006000500017Google Scholar
Ellert, BH and Bettany, JR 1995. Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils under contrasting management regimes. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 75, 529–538. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss95-075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, F, Fernandes, AHBM, Alves, BJR, Bayer, C, Boddey, RM and Oliveira, PPA 2014. Protocolo para quantificação dos estoques de carbono do solo da Rede de Pesquisa Pecus. Retrieved on 31 January 2020 from http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/117416/1/Documentos116.pdfGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, E, Jayasundara, S, Bordonal, RD, Berchielli, TT, Reis, RA, Wagner-Riddle, C and La Scala, N Jr 2017. Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of beef cattle in three contrasting pasture-management systems in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 420–423. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gusmão, MR, Alves, TC, Lemes, AP, Bettiol, GM, Pedroso, AF, Barioni Junior, W, Oliveira, PPA and Grego, CR 2015. Sodium fluorescein as an internal tracer on the location of bovine urine patches in pastures. Grass and Forage Science 71, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBGE - Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics 2018. Confronto dos resultados dos dados estruturais dos Censos Agropecuários 1975/2017. Retrieved on 13 August 2020 from https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/21814-2017-censo-agropecuario.html?=&t=downloadsGoogle Scholar
IPCC 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC (ed.Solomon, S, Qin, D, Manning, M, Chen, Z, Marquis, M, Averyt, KB, Tignor, M and Miller, HL). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
IPCC 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ed. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, RK and Meyer, LA). IPCC, Geneva, CH.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA and Johnson, DE 1995. Methane emission from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 2483–2492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, TTH, Doreau, M, Eugene, M, Corson, MS, Garcia-Launay, G, Chesneau, G and van der Werf, HMG, 2012. Effect of farming practices for greenhouse gas mitigation and subsequent alternative land use on environmental impacts of beef cattle production systems. Animal 7, 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MAPA - Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply 2012. Sector mitigation and adaptation plan climate change for consolidating a low carbon economy in agriculture. MAPA, Brasília, DF, Brazil.Google Scholar
MAPA - Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply 2016. Agribusiness biddings, Brazil 2015/2016–2025/2026. MAPA, Brasília, DF, Brazil.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, AD and McAllister, TA 2006. Assessment of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 1686–1691. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MCTIC - Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications 2020. Estimativas anuais de emissões de gases de efeito estufa no Brasil. Retrieved on 13 August 2020 from https://issuu.com/mctic/docs/livro_estimativas_anuais_de_emissoes_de_gases_de_eGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, D, Herron, J, Andurand, J, Caré, S, Martinez, P, Migliorati, L, Moro, M, Pirlo, G and Dollé, JB 2019. LIFE BEEF CARBON: a common framework for quantifying grass and corn-based beef farms’ carbon footprints. Animal 14, 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119002519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, PPA, Boaretto, AE, Trivelin, PCO, Oliveira, WS and Corsi, M 2003. Liming and fertilization for restoring degraded Brachiaria decumbens pasture on sandy soil. Scientia Agricola 60, 125–131. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162003000100019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, PPA, Trivelin, PCO and Oliveira, WS 2007. Urea 15N balance in the fractions of a Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu pasture under recovery with different liming dates. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 36, 1982–1989. http://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982007000900006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, PPA, Penati, MA and Corsi, M 2008. Soil correction and pasture fertilization in intensive milk production systems. Retrieved on 31 January 2020 from http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/37957/1/Documentos86.pdfGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, PPA, Azenha, MV, Rodrigues, PHM, Alves, TC, Lemes, AP and Pedroso, AF 2016. Nitrous oxide emission by pastures in tropical beef production systems. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture, 7–9 July 2016, Campo Grande, Brazil, pp. 93–96.Google Scholar
Oliveira, PPA, Corte, RRS, Silva, SL, Rodriguez, PHM, Sakamoto, LS, Pedroso, AF, Tullio, RR and Berndt, A 2018. The effect of grazing system intensification on the growth and meat quality of beef cattle in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest biome. Meat Science 139, 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.01.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Mara, FP 2012. The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Annals of Botany 110, 1263–1270. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkin, TB and Venterea, RT 2010. USDA-ARS GRACEnet Project Protocols: chamber-based trace gas flux measurements. USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO, USA.Google Scholar
Pinares-Patiño, CS and Clark, H 2008. Reliability of the súlfur hexafluoride tracer technique for methane emission measurement from individual animals: an overview. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, LS 2018. Methane emission intensities from beef cattle Nellore finished on pasture and crossbred in feedlot. PhD thesis, College of Animal Science and Food Engineer, USP, Pirassununga, Brazil.Google Scholar
Segnini, A, Xavier, AAP, Otaviani Junior, PL, Oliveira, PPA, Pedroso, AF, Praes, MFFM, Rodrigues, PHM and Milori, DMBP 2019. Soil carbon stock and humification in pastures under different levels of intensification in Brazil. Scientia Agricola 76, 33–40. http://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2017-0131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisti, CPJ, Santos, HP, Kohhann, R, Alves, BJR, Urquiaga, S and Boddey, RM 2004. Change in carbon and nitrogen stocks in soil under 13 years of conventional or zero tillage in southern Brazil. Soil & Tillage Research 76, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2003.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soussana, JF and Lemaire, G 2014. Coupling carbon and nitrogen for cycles environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 190, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soussana, JF, Tallec, T and Blanfort, V 2010. Mitigating the greenhouse gas balance of ruminant production systems through carbon sequestration in grasslands. Animal 4, 334–350. https://doi:10.1017/S1751731109990784CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, PL, Rowntreea, JE, Beedea, DK, DeLongeb, MS and Hammc, MW 2018 Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems 162, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldkamp, E 1994. Organic-carbon turnover in 3 tropical soils under pasture after deforestation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800010025xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanatta, JA, Alves, BJ, Bayer, C, Tomazi, M, Fernandes, AHBM, Costa, FS and Carvalho, AM 2014. Protocolo para medição de fluxos de gases de efeito estufa do solo. Retrieved on 31 January 2020 from http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/123470/1/Doc.-265-Protocolo-Josileia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Oliveira et al. supplementary material

Oliveira et al. supplementary material

Download Oliveira et al. supplementary material(File)
File 43.5 KB