Sign Up Submit Enquiry

Environmental Impacts of Brazilian Beef Production and Mitigation Alternatives—A Systematized Review

Home Environmental Impacts of Brazilian Beef Production and Mitigation Alternatives—A Systematized Review

Related Articles

Contact us

Article Content

Abstract

The rise in global mean temperature is the main cause of the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. In Brazil, the main sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are land use change and the agricultural sector, with emphasis on beef production. In this study, our objective was to examine the contribution of beef production to environmental impacts and evaluate the potential for mitigating these effects to address environmental concerns. We conducted a systematized review of agricultural production impacts on the environment, specifically deforestation and GHG emissions, and debated the solutions available to mitigate these impacts by focusing on alternatives for livestock production. The search resulted in 54 articles, of which 43 were selected and divided into categories according to topic similarities. Beef production, especially in the extensive system, widely contributes to GHG emissions, specifically due to enteric fermentation and manure left on the pasture, and deforestation for pasture opening. The solutions to mitigate these impacts permeate several areas, such as political and structural modifications, and changes in the agricultural production model. Of the intensification strategies discussed, we highlight pasture restoration, rotational grazing and diet supplementation as the most promising approaches. Our study makes an important contribution to the discourse on sustainability in beef production by recognizing and addressing the multifaceted challenges inherent in achieving sustainability.

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

  • Corporate Environmental Management
  • Environmental Impact
  • Environmental Economics
  • Environmental Management
  • Resource and Environmental Economics
  • Sustainability

Data Availability

Data analyzed in the current study are openly available in the literature, and the authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

References

  1. ABIEC (2020). Beef Report – Perfil da pecuária no Brasil. Associação Brasileiras das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carne, São Paulo. Available at <http://abiec.com.br/publicacoes/beef-report-2020/#dflip-df_2947/1/> (accessed 10 January 2023)

  2. Abrams AL, Carden K, Teta C, Wågsæther K (2021) Water, sanitation, and hygiene vulnerability among rural areas and small towns in south africa: exploring the role of climate change, marginalization, and inequality. Water 13:2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13202810

    Article Google Scholar

  3. Alves-Pinto HN, Newton P, Pinto LFG (2015) Reducing deforestation and enhancing sustainability in commodity supply chains: interactions between governance interventions and cattle certification in Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 8:1053–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291500800414

    Article Google Scholar

  4. Barbosa FA, Filho BSS, Merry FD et al (2015) Cenários para a pecuária de corte amazônica1.ed. – Belo Horizonte: Ed. IGC/UFMG, 146 p. ISBN: 978–85–61968–02–1

  5. Berchielli TT, Messana JD, Canesin RC (2012) Produção de metano entérico em pastagens tropicais. Rev bras saúde prod anim 13:954–968. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402012000400010

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  6. Bogaerts M, Cirhigiri L, Robinson I et al (2017) Climate change mitigation through intensified pasture management: Estimating greenhouse gas emissions on cattle farms in the Brazilian Amazon. J Clean Prod 162:1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.130

    Article Google Scholar

  7. Bowman MS, Soares-Filho BS, Merry FD et al (2012) Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Land Use Policy 29:558–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.009

    Article Google Scholar

  8. Buller LS, Bergier I, Ortega E et al (2015) Soil improvement and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions for integrated crop–livestock systems: case study assessment in the Pantanal savanna highland, Brazil. Agric Syst 137:206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.11.004

    Article Google Scholar

  9. Bustamante M, Robledo-Abad C, Harper R et al (2014) Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Glob Change Biol 20:3270–3290. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12591

    Article Google Scholar

  10. Carauta M, Troost C, Guzman-Bustamante I et al (2021) Climate-related land use policies in Brazil: How much has been achieved with economic incentives in agriculture? Land Use Policy 109:105618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105618

    Article Google Scholar

  11. Cerri CC, Moreira CS, Alves PA et al (2016) Assessing the carbon footprint of beef cattle in Brazil: a case study with 22 farms in the State of Mato Grosso. J Clean Prod 112:2593–2600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.072

    Article Google Scholar

  12. Cerri CC, Maia SMF, Galdos MV et al (2009) Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions: the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci agric (Piracicaba, Braz) 66:831–843. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162009000600017

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  13. Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K et al (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370:705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Cortner O, Garrett RD, Valentim JF et al (2019) Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 82:841–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.006

    Article Google Scholar

  15. Costa F de A (2016) Contributions of fallow lands in the Brazilian Amazon to CO2 balance, deforestation and the agrarian economy: inequalities among competing land use trajectories. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 4:000133. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000133

  16. da Silveira PL, Barro RS, Savian JV et al (2018) Performance and methane emissions by beef heifer grazing in temperate pastures and in integrated crop-livestock systems: The effect of shade and nitrogen fertilization. Agr Ecosyst Environ 253:90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.009

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  17. De Araujo MSM, De Campos C, Rosa L (2007) Historical emissions, by country, of N2O from animal manure management and of CH4 from enteric fermentation in domestic livestock. Climate Res 34:253–258

    Google Scholar

  18. de Area Leão Pereira EJ, de Santana Ribeiro LC, da Silva Freitas LF, de Barros Pereira HB (2020) Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy 92:104491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104491

  19. de Espindola GM, de Aguiar APD, Pebesma E et al (2012) Agricultural land use dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon based on remote sensing and census data. Appl Geogr 32:240–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.04.003

    Article Google Scholar

  20. de Oliveira SR, Barioni LG, Albertini TZ et al (2015) Developing a nationally appropriate mitigation measure from the greenhouse gas GHG abatement potential from livestock production in the Brazilian Cerrado. Agric Syst 140:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.08.011

    Article Google Scholar

  21. de Oliveira SR, Barioni LG, Hall JAJ et al (2016) Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation. Nature Clim Change 6:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2916

    Article Google Scholar

  22. de Oliveira SR, Barioni LG, Queiroz Pellegrino G, Moran D (2018) The role of agricultural intensification in Brazil’s Nationally Determined Contribution on emissions mitigation. Agric Syst 161:102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.003

    Article Google Scholar

  23. de Oliveira SR, Barioni LG, Moran D (2021) Fire, deforestation, and livestock: When the smoke clears. Land Use Policy 100:104949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104949

    Article Google Scholar

  24. de Souza Filho W, Nunes PA de A, Barro RS et al (2019) Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: Trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production 213:968–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.245

  25. Nascimento AF, Oliveira CM, Pedreira BC et al (2021) Nitrous oxide emissions and forage accumulation in the Brazilian Amazon forage-livestock systems submitted to N input strategies. Grassl Sci 67:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12287

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  26. El Batti MM, Machado PG, Hawkes A, de Oliveira RC (2023) Land use policies and their effects on Brazilian farming production. J Nat Conserv 73:126373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126373

    Article Google Scholar

  27. Eri M, Silva Junior CA da, Lima M, et al (2020) Capitalizing on opportunities provided by pasture sudden death to enhance livestock sustainable management in Brazilian Amazonia. Environmental Development 33:100499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100499

  28. Fachinetto JD, Brisola MV (2018) Evolução dos estudos sobre a produção de bovinos de corte e a emissão de gases de efeito estufa decorrente dessa atividade na região central do Brasil. Desenvolv Meio Ambiente 45:. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v45i0.47354

  29. Fernandes MHMR, Cardoso AS, Lima LO et al (2022) Human-edible protein contribution of tropical beef cattle production systems at different levels of intensification. animal 16:100538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100538

  30. Florindo TJ, Florindo GIB de. M, Talamini E et al (2018) Application of the multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach in the identification of Carbon Footprint reduction actions in the Brazilian beef production chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 196:1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.116

  31. Florindo TJ (2017) Improving feed efficiency as a strategy to reduce beef carbon footprint in the Brazilian Midwest region. Int J Environment and Sustainable Development 16:4

    Google Scholar

  32. Fonseca de Souza L, Alvarez DO, Domeignoz-Horta LA et al (2022) Maintaining grass coverage increases methane uptake in Amazonian pastures, with a reduction of methanogenic archaea in the rhizosphere. Sci Total Environ 838:156225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156225

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Gil JDB, Garrett RD, Rotz A et al (2018) Tradeoffs in the quest for climate smart agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso. Brazil Environ Res Lett 13:064025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4d1

    Article Google Scholar

  34. Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: a typology of reviews, Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth. Health Info Libr J 26:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  35. IBGE (2021) PPM – Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/economicas/agricultura-e-pecuaria/9107-producao-da-pecuaria-municipal.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2023

  36. IMAZON (2021). Políticas para desenvolver a pecuária na Amazônia sem desmatamento. [Internet]. Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia. Projeto Amazônia 2030. https://amazonia2030.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/pecuaria-extrativa_final_Paulo-Barreto-1.pdf Accessed 03 Jan 2025

  37. IPCC (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. In Press.

  38. IPEA (2021) Carta de Conjuntura. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. Ministério da Economia. Nº 52. Nota 33.

  39. Jose Neto A, Messana JD, Rossi LG et al (2019) Methane emissions from Nellore bulls on pasture fed two levels of starch-based supplement with or without a source of oil. Anim Prod Sci 59:654. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16095

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  40. Kalele DN, Ogara WO, Oludhe C, Onono JO (2021) Climate change impacts and relevance of smallholder farmers’ response in arid and semi-arid lands in Kenya. Scientific African 12:e00814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00814

    Article Google Scholar

  41. Leite VP, Debone D, MIRAGLIA SGEK (2020) Emissões de gases de efeito estufa no estado de São Paulo: análise do setor de transportes e impactos na saúde. Vittalle, 32(3):143–153.

  42. Lesschen JP, van den Berg M, Westhoek HJ et al (2011) Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167:16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.058

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  43. Lovato LG, Schultz G, Revillion JPP (2020) Crédito agrícola para a mitigação das mudanças climáticas: uma análise do Programa ABC. Rev Agro Amb 13:897–913. https://doi.org/10.17765/2176-9168.2020v13n3p897-913

  44. Machado JM, Motta EAM da, Barbosa MR, et al (2022) Strategies to mitigate the emission of methane in pastures: enteric methane: A review. Aust J Crop Sci, pp 682–690. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.22.16.06.p3457

  45. MAPBIOMAS (2021). Projeto MapBiomas—Coleção 7.0 da Série Anual de Mapas de Uso e Cobertura da Terra do Brasil. [Internet].https://plataforma.brasil.mapbiomas.org/ Accessed 16 Jan 2023.

  46. Marques JGO, de Oliveira SR, Barioni LG et al (2022) Evaluating environmental and economic trade-offs in cattle feed strategies using multiobjective optimization. Agric Syst 195:103308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103308

    Article Google Scholar

  47. McAlpine CA, Etter A, Fearnside PM et al (2009) Increasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: A call for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil. Glob Environ Chang 19:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.008

    Article Google Scholar

  48. Milne E, Cerri CEP, Carvalho JLN (2010) Agricultural expansion in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso; implications for C stocks and greenhouse gas emissions. In: Tscharntke T, Leuschner C, Veldkamp E et al (eds) Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests under Global Change. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 447–460

    Google Scholar

  49. Mirzabaev A, Bezner Kerr R, Hasegawa T et al (2023) Severe climate change risks to food security and nutrition. Clim Risk Manag 39:100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100473

    Article Google Scholar

  50. Muniz RA, de Sousa EF, Mendonça JC et al (2014) Balanço de energia e evapotranspiração do capim Mombaça sob sistema de pastejo rotacionado. Rev bras meteorol 29:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-77862014000100005

    Article Google Scholar

  51. Palangi V, Lackner M (2022) Management of enteric methane emissions in ruminants using feed additives: a review. Animals 12:3452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12243452

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  52. Ribeiro LC de S, Leão EJ de A, Freitas LF da S (2018) Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Economic Performance of Livestock, an Environmental Input-Output Analysis. Rev Econ Sociol Rural 56:225–238. https://doi.org/10.1590/1234-56781806-94790560203

  53. RITCHIE H, ROSER M, ROSADO P (2021) CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Published online at OurWorldInData.org, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions Accessed 16 Jan 2023

  54. Roubuste RR, Valcorte G, Bianchini NH, Souza KMO de (2022) Mudanças climáticas e o mercado de carbono. Iheringia Ser Bot 77:e2022014–e2022014. https://doi.org/10.21826/2446-82312022v77e2022014

  55. Sakamoto LS, Berndt A, Pedroso A de F, et al (2020) Pasture intensification in beef cattle production can affect methane emission intensity. J Animal Sci 98:skaa309. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa309

  56. Sataloff RT, Bush ML, Chandra R et al (2021) Systematic and other reviews: criteria and complexities. World j otorhinolaryngol-head neck surg 7:236–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2021.04.007

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  57. SEEG (2023) Emissões totais. Plataforma de dados. Sistema de Estimativas de Emissões e Remoções de Gases de Efeito Estufa. [Internet] http://plataforma.seeg.eco.br/total_emission# Accessed 31 Jan 2023

  58. Silva JG da, Ruviaro CF, Ferreira Filho JB de S (2017) Livestock intensification as a climate policy: lessons from the Brazilian case. Land Use Policy 62:232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.025

  59. Silva MA, Lima M, Silva Junior CA et al (2018) Achieving low-carbon cattle ranching in the Amazon: ‘Pasture sudden death’ as a window of opportunity. Land Degrad Develop 29:3535–3543. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3087

    Article Google Scholar

  60. Simioni TA, Messana JD, Silva LG et al (2022) Performance and enteric methane emission of growing beef bulls from different genetic groups subjected to two supplementation strategies grazing tropical grass in the rainy season. Anim Feed Sci Technol 293:115470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2022.115470

    Article CAS Google Scholar

  61. Tadini AM, Martin‐Neto L, Goranov AI, et al (2022) Chemical characteristics of soil organic matter from integrated agricultural systems in southeastern Brazil. Eur J Soil Science 73:. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13136

  62. Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Ferrara AF et al (2015) The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Glob Change Biol 21:2655–2660. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12865

    Article Google Scholar

  63. UN (2019) World Population 2019: wall chart. United Nations. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. [Internet] https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019-Wallchart.pdf Accessed 10 Dec 2022

  64. van den Bergh JCJM, Botzen WJW (2015) Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO 2 emissions: a critical survey. Ecol Econ 114:33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.015

    Article Google Scholar

  65. WRI (2019) Creating a sustainable food future: a menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. World Resources Institute. World Resources Report

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Universidade Federal de São Paulo master’s program Análise Ambiental Integrada and CAPES for the support provided.

Funding

This study was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) – grant numbers nº 88887.688688/2022-00 (M.V.C) and nº 1808529 (D.D); by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP): grant numbers 2018/26193-3 (S.G.E.K.M and D.D), 2019/24506-7 (M.V.C), 2021/10599-3 (S.G.E.K.M and D.D), and 2024/02476-7 (D.D); and by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) research productivity scholarship – grant number nº 308378/2021-0 (S.G.E.K.M).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Ciências Ambientais, Químicas e Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Diadema, SP, 09913-030, Brazil

    Mariana Vieira da Costa, Daniela Debone & Simone Georges El Khouri Miraglia

  2. Antimicrobial Resistance Institute of São Paulo (ARIES), São Paulo, SP, 04023-900, Brazil

    Daniela Debone & Simone Georges El Khouri Miraglia

Contributions

MVC: Conceptualization, Literature search, Writing—original draft preparation, Writing—review and editing. DD: Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing, Supervision. SGEKM: Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariana Vieira da Costa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Kusumakar Sharma.

About this article

Cite this article

da Costa, M.V., Debone, D. & Miraglia, S.G.E.K. Environmental Impacts of Brazilian Beef Production and Mitigation Alternatives—A Systematized Review. Agric Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-025-00877-0

  • Received
  • Accepted
  • Published
  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-025-00877-0

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • Beef production
  • Deforestation
  • Enteric fermentation
  • GHG emissions
  • Intensive system

Copyright © All rights reserved Designed and Developed by Digital Flavers

WhatsApp