Beef production in Brazil

One of the facts I picked up on in the documentary 'Before the Flood' was that beef is the foremost reason for tropical deforestation. Tropical forests cover 7% of the land and are home to 50% of all living things on the planet. The Amazon is an example of one of these tropical forests and it is notably referred to as 'the lungs of the planet'. It is located in South America and spreads across many countries, one of which is Brazil.

Figure 1 | Map of South America outlining the Amazon. 

(source: wwf.panda.org)

Brazil is a leading global producer and exporter of beef, and has the world's largest commercial cattle herd. In order to produce these vast quantities of beef, huge amounts of pastureland are required. A study I read stated that between 2002 and 2004, a surge in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazonia occurred which is strongly related to the creation of pastureland - this is the dominant course of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazonia.

McAlpine et al. (2009) investigated the effects of beef consumption, in order to attempt to raise awareness of the issue, through using three case studies from three different countries, one of which was Brazil. Figure 2 taken from the paper illustrates the extent to which cattle expansion is occurring in Amazonia itself compared with the rest of Brazil.

Figure 2 | This graph illustrates the recent surge of cattle expansion in Amazonia. 

(After McAlpine et al., 2009)

This study noted previous work which had simulated the atmospheric response that would occur if the entirety of the Amazon was replaced by pastureland. The results of this suggest that rainfall over the region would decrease, possibly as a result of decreases in evapotranspiration, and higher temperatures. In addition to this, even greater levels of biodiversity loss would occur. This indirectly demonstrates the consequences of our global meat consumption. Furthermore, as global beef consumption grows more affordable in economically emerging countries, such as China (McAlpine et al., 2009), these simulations become even more concerning as more and more of the Amazon will need to be deforested to meet demand. Another study by Cederberg et al. (2009) investigated the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions life cycle, and the use of energy and land from the beef that is exported from Brazil to Europe. A statistic that was uncovered was that GHG emissions produced from the primary production of Brazilian beef is at least 30-40% higher compared with the current European production levels. This emphasises Brazil as a key GHG emitter through its cattle herds. 

In great contrast to this blogpost so far, a paper by de Oliveira Silva et al. (2016) analysed the relationship between beef demand, production, intensification, deforestation and soil carbon dynamics. Using their decoupled livestock-deforestation (DLD) scenario, the paper argues a decrease in beef demand may actually increase GHG emissions in the Cerrado grazing system (this area accounts for about 34% of Brazil's beef production). The study comes to this conclusion that a decrease in demand would lead to smaller cattle herds required, which means less grass is needed to be produced for feed. Therefore there is a decrease in people's incentive to increase, or even maintain, productivity of the pasture which would cause the pastures to degrade and so result in a decrease in soil organic matter. This leads to a decrease in soil carbon stocks and so the pasture would no longer be an efficient carbon sink, which would increasing atmospheric carbon levels.

Yes, this makes logical, scientific sense. However, it is very important to note that this DLD scenario carries the assumption that deforestation rates are controlled by effective policy. This raises a key question - will effective policy be implemented? According to McAlpine et al. (2009), the Brazilian government was heavily involved in eliminating foot-and-mouth disease to increase their exports of beef. Furthermore, branches of the Brazilian government promote building roads in order to access remote parts of Amazonia to use for cattle grazing. Based on this past knowledge of the government, in my opinion, it seems unlikely that effective policy would actually be implemented.

So what is the solution? Cederberg et al. (2009) states that improved land management is necessary to reduce GHG emissions from cattle. Interestingly, a study by Figueiredo et al. (2016) examined the GHG emissions and the carbon footprint of cattle in three sites in Brazil which all use differing production techniques. Through their investigation, the authors were able to propose alternative land-use solutions to reduce GHG emissions. One of their solutions was to convert degraded pasture to well-managed pasture because their study showed that this may reduce the carbon footprint from beef cattle through a more efficient system. A second solution was through the adoption of a crop-livestock-forest  integrated system (CLFIS) where cattle grazing would be integrated with the production of trees, grains and grasses. It is stated that this could offset cattle emissions, and perhaps even provide a valuable carbon sink. 

Perhaps improving the management of both cattle and the land they require is the way forward. However, ideas, such as those suggested by Figueiredo et al. (2016), could take years to implement. Nevertheless, it is without a doubt that cattle-rearing is a significant problem both in terms of the substantial volume of GHGs cattle emit as well as its impact on the Amazon through deforestation. 

A question I wish for you to ask yourselves is this - is it really worth destroying the Amazon, one of the greatest biodiversity hotspots and crucial carbon sinks on the planet, for some meat?

(source: travelinnate.com)