IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v185y2020ics0308521x20308052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomass consumption and environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Arrieta, Ezequiel M.
  • Cabrol, Diego A.
  • Cuchietti, Anibal
  • González, Alejandro D.

Abstract

Argentina is globally known as a beef producer and consumer. Although the national and international significance of Argentinean bovine meat production, only few but valuable attempts were made to systematize and evaluate the environmental impact of the beef cattle sector by using a life cycle perspective. In the present work we aim to assess the environmental performance of the Argentinean beef cattle sector by performing a cradle-to-farm-gate partial life cycle analysis. Firstly, we modeled 75 beef cow-calf and finishing systems distributed among 8 livestock regions to obtain the environmental footprint per ton of live weight (LW) at farm gate for each cow-calf and finishing system. Secondly, the cow-calf and finishing systems were linked to form full production systems for each region and weighted by regional stocks. Thirdly, the regional data were integrated to determine the weighted average footprint per ton of LW and the absolute environmental impacts of the entire beef cattle sector. For 2016, the weighted means of environmental footprints at national scale were: 22.6 ton DM/ton LW for biomass consumption, 10.7 ha/ton LW for land occupation, 17.4 ton CO2/ton LW for GHG emissions, 10.3 GJ/ton LW for fossil energy use, 182 kg N-P-S/ton LW for synthetic fertilizer use and 4.68 kg a.i./ton LW for pesticides use. As a result, the total production of beef cattle in Argentina during 2016 consumed an estimated 129 Mton of biomass, of which 92% was grass (71% native pastures and 21% seeded pastures) and 8% were supplements as maize grain, silage (maize and sorghum) and hay. Regarding land occupation 61.1 Mha was necessary to supply the sector, 95% of it represented by grasslands (81% native pastures and 14% seeded pastures). Also, the beef cattle sector emitted to the atmosphere 99.3 Mton CO2-eq and used a total of 58.8 million GJ of fossil energy, 1.04 Mton of synthetic fertilizer and 26.7 thousand kg a.i. of pesticides.

Suggested Citation

  • Arrieta, Ezequiel M. & Cabrol, Diego A. & Cuchietti, Anibal & González, Alejandro D., 2020. "Biomass consumption and environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:185:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20308052
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308052
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102944?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Pelletier & Peter Tyedmers, 2011. "An Ecological Economic Critique of the Use of Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment Research," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 15(3), pages 342-354, June.
    2. Bilotto, Franco & Recavarren, Paulo & Vibart, Ronaldo & Machado, Claudio F., 2019. "Backgrounding strategy effects on farm productivity, profitability and greenhouse gas emissions of cow-calf systems in the Flooding Pampas of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Becona, Gonzalo & Astigarraga, Laura & Picasso, Valentin D., 2014. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Beef Cow-Calf Grazing Systems in Uruguay," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(2).
    4. Rotz, C. Alan & Asem-Hiablie, Senorpe & Place, Sara & Thoma, Greg, 2019. "Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-13.
    5. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Merida, Vincent Elijiah & Cook, David & Ögmundarson, Ólafur & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices of meat and dairy production: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Catalina Fernández Rosso & Franco Bilotto & Andrea Lauric & Gerónimo A. De Leo & Carlos Torres Carbonell & Mauricio A. Arroqui & Claus G. Sørensen & Claudio F. Machado, 2021. "An innovation path in Argentinean cow–calf operations: Insights from participatory farm system modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 488-502, August.
    3. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Castaño-Sánchez, José P. & Rotz, C. Alan & McIntosh, Matthew M. & Tolle, Cindy & Gifford, Craig A. & Duff, Glenn C. & Spiegal, Sheri A., 2023. "Grass finishing of Criollo cattle can provide an environmentally preferred and cost effective meat supply chain from United States drylands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    5. Bilotto, Franco & Recavarren, Paulo & Vibart, Ronaldo & Machado, Claudio F., 2019. "Backgrounding strategy effects on farm productivity, profitability and greenhouse gas emissions of cow-calf systems in the Flooding Pampas of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Leticia Regueiro & Richard Newton & Mohamed Soula & Diego Méndez & Björn Kok & David C. Little & Roberto Pastres & Johan Johansen & Martiña Ferreira, 2022. "Opportunities and limitations for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture based on the regulatory framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 2033-2044, December.
    7. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Roux, Charlotte & Schalbart, Patrick & Assoumou, Edi & Peuportier, Bruno, 2016. "Integrating climate change and energy mix scenarios in LCA of buildings and districts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 619-629.
    9. Hoffman, Eric & Cavigelli, Michel A. & Camargo, Gustavo & Ryan, Matthew & Ackroyd, Victoria J. & Richard, Tom L. & Mirsky, Steven, 2018. "Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 89-96.
    10. Oliver Lazarus & Sonali McDermid & Jennifer Jacquet, 2021. "The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-21, March.
    11. André Pastori D’Aurea & Abmael da Silva Cardoso & Yuri Santa Rosa Guimarães & Lauriston Bertelli Fernandes & Luis Eduardo Ferreira & Ricardo Andrade Reis, 2021. "Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Production in Brazil through Animal Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-9, June.
    12. Allacker, K. & Mathieux, F. & Manfredi, S. & Pelletier, N. & De Camillis, C. & Ardente, F. & Pant, R., 2014. "Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 1-12.
    13. Bonnin, Dennis & Tabacco, Ernesto & Borreani, Giorgio, 2021. "Variability of greenhouse gas emissions and economic performances on 10 Piedmontese beef farms in North Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    14. Ilkka Leinonen, 2019. "Achieving Environmentally Sustainable Livestock Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, January.
    15. María I. Nieto & Olivia Barrantes & Liliana Privitello & Ramón Reiné, 2018. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Grazing Systems in Semi-Arid Rangelands of Central Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-22, November.
    16. Elio Romano & Rocco Roma & Flavio Tidona & Giorgio Giraffa & Andrea Bragaglio, 2021. "Dairy Farms and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): The Allocation Criterion Useful to Estimate Undesirable Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Dzeraviaha, Ihar, 2018. "Mainstream economics toolkit within the ecological economics framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 15-21.
    18. Alemu, Aklilu W. & Amiro, Brian D. & Bittman, Shabtai & MacDonald, Douglas & Ominski, Kim H., 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission of Canadian cow-calf operations: A whole-farm assessment of 295 farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 73-83.
    19. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Emilia Lamonaca & Marco Tappi & Leonardo Di Gioia, 2019. "Considerations on the Environmental and Social Sustainability of Animal-Based Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Liu, Zhe & Adams, Michelle & Cote, Raymond P. & Geng, Yong & Chen, Qinghua & Liu, Weili & Sun, Lu & Yu, Xiaoman, 2017. "Comprehensive development of industrial symbiosis for the response of greenhouse gases emission mitigation: Challenges and opportunities in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 88-95.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:185:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20308052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.