IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p4229-d1396809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptive Grazing of Native Grasslands Provides Ecosystem Services and Reduces Economic Instability for Livestock Systems in the Flooding Pampa, Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth J. Jacobo

    (Área de Agroecología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Ulises J. Martínez Ortiz

    (Departamento de Economía, Desarrollo y Planeamiento Agrícola, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Santiago M. Cotroneo

    (Área de Agroecología, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

  • Adriana M. Rodríguez

    (Departamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina)

Abstract

There is a widespread concern about the negative impact of intensive livestock farming on climate change and biodiversity loss. We analyzed the trade-off between meat production and environmental variables related to global warming—energy consumption, use efficiency of energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon footprint, and GHG balance—of two alternative intensification strategies of livestock farming in the Flooding Pampa: conventional intensification (CI) based on external inputs, and ecological intensification (EI) based on maintaining native grassland in good condition through adaptive multi-paddock grazing (AMPG). We also explored the relationship between meat production and the economic variables gross margin and its year-to-year variation. Energy consumption was positively correlated with meat production (ρ = 0.95, p = 0.0117), and EI farms consumed less fuel energy and showed higher energy use efficiency than CI farms (294 ± 152 vs. 2740 ± 442 MJ ha −1 y −1 , 38.4 ± 28.8 vs. 1.23 ± 0.13 MJ kg LW −1 y −1 , p < 0.05, respectively). GHG emissions and carbon footprint did not show significant differences between EI and CI strategies. As soil carbon sequestration was significantly higher in EI farms than in CI farms (1676 ± 304 vs. −433 ± 343 kg CO 2eq ha −1 y −1 , p < 0.05), GHG balance resulted almost neutral and higher under the EI strategy (−693 ± 732 vs. −3520 ± 774 kg CO 2eq ha −1 y −1 , p < 0.05). CI strategy obtained higher meat production but a similar gross margin to the EI strategy and a more unstable economic return, as the coefficient of variation in the gross margin doubled that of the EI strategy (84 + 13.3 vs. 43 + 2.6, respectively, p < 0.05). Ecological intensification of cattle production in the Flooding Pampa demonstrates the potential for a positive relationship between individual cattle farmers’ profits and overall societal benefits, as reflected in improved environmental performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth J. Jacobo & Ulises J. Martínez Ortiz & Santiago M. Cotroneo & Adriana M. Rodríguez, 2024. "Adaptive Grazing of Native Grasslands Provides Ecosystem Services and Reduces Economic Instability for Livestock Systems in the Flooding Pampa, Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4229-:d:1396809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4229/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/4229/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:4229-:d:1396809. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.