Threats - Agriculture and Cattle Ranching Agriculture The rapid deforestation currently occurring in the Amazon rainforests is not the result of a lack of suitable farmland, but rather of the inefficiency of current agricultural methods. Although it may seem like humankind and nature can never coexist in harmony, this is not true.
Emissions reductions are reported as negative numbers. Emissions increases are reported as positive numbers. Either a tax on beef from conventional pasture in Brazil T or a subsidy for beef from semi-intensive pasture in Brazil S could substantially alter production and consumption of beef in Brazil and in the rest of the world ROW.
Cattle product output would increase by 9. With pasture area reduced by 16 million hectares mha15 mha of forest would be spared from deforestation. The GHG abatement reported above can be considered conservative because it is based on the lowest density carbon map of the four datasets investigated.
S3 reports results for each carbon scenario. Using trade scenarios, no trade and no consumption, no trade, we estimate how much of the abatement under STAU and TTAU is enhanced or diminished by trade and consumption leakage.
The results would be decreased beef production offshore and increased beef consumption in both Brazil and in the ROW. The result would be increased production offshore and reduced beef consumption in Brazil and the ROW. However, much larger shifts would occur between regions. Overall, the supply effects are three times larger than the demand effects.
This result is explained by the regional discrepancies in the supply and demand responsiveness to price see SI Text for the responsiveness of beef demand to price and to model constraints on the most dramatic of changes in bilateral trade flows.
Even with the conservative mitigation estimates, the total annual costs of STAU are in line with existing government expenditures to reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture in Brazil However, because the cost of the tax to Brazilian suppliers is tied to the area of conventional pasture and because this area would diminish over time, the cost of the tax would also diminish.
In contrast, because the cost of the subsidy to the government is tied to the area of semi-intensive pasture and this area would increase over time, the cost of the subsidy would also increase.
Disbursement to producers who adopt semi-intensive cattle systems would cost 30 billion USD. However, net pasture area in Brazil would fall by 16 mha because STAU would also prompt abandonment of 88 mha of conventional cattle production. The remaining conventional producers would pay 48 billion USD in taxes.
Under both STAU and TTAU, intensive pasture is more than three times as likely as conventional pasture to be planted on land that is high quality and accessible to markets i. This intensive pasture is also twice as likely as conventional pasture to be found in locations that are highly suitable for soybeans, i.
Thus, intensive pasture may be more likely than conventional pasture to compete with crop agriculture expansion. Because some cattle ranching produces substantially less protein per unit area than crop agriculture, the land-sparing effect might be enhanced if it were possible to induce intensive cattle ranching on land not well suited to cropping.
Discussion We find that cattle ranching intensification policies in Brazil can cost-effectively abate GHGs by limiting deforestation. These results are in line with previous studies suggesting that regional agricultural productivity gains can reduce global GHGs and can help to limit deforestation 4.
Later studies tested the presumption that crop area indeed varies in an inverse proportion with changes in crop yields. Critiques focused especially on the potential for increased productivity to increase agricultural extent by increasing the area over which agriculture is profitable 28 Other studies have sought to identify correlations between periods of increasing productivity and declining agricultural area within a particular region or nation 30 The rationale has been that such correlations are necessary evidence of land sparing.
However, empirical analyses linking increases in agricultural productivity with increases in area do not rule out land sparing. Neither do analyses linking increases in agricultural productivity with decreases in agricultural area necessarily show land sparing.
First, changes in agricultural area are primarily caused by factors besides changes in agricultural productivity.
Land-sparing analyses must control for these other drivers. Second, as long as the region of analysis participates in agricultural trade, some portion of the effects of the productivity change can be expected to occur extralocally.
It is therefore necessary to trace the effects of a regional productivity shock across all trade-connected regions.
Third, it is possible that productivity changes observed are not independent of changes in agricultural area Statistical techniques may be required to account for the influence of agricultural area on agricultural productivity.
Model-based land-sparing analyses are another approach used to overcome the abovementioned hurdles to empirical land-sparing analysis. The authors use land saving as opposed to land sparing to contrast the measurement of changes in land use relative to a modeled counterfactual baseline vs.
We agree that this distinction is important methodologically, but Stevenson et al. Modeled land-sparing results are highly sensitive to the simulated counterfactual baseline. A part of the discrepancy is that our GHG abatement relies on a terrestrial carbon map with relatively low carbon values.
In alternative model scenarios, with four other higher carbon maps, abatement reached Mt CO2eq for the tax and Mt CO2eq for the subsidy Fig.Ranching practices interactively affect soil , food production will need to increase by 70% to feed the growing ha cattle ranch and research laboratory with> wetlands ranging in size from to ha and inundated up to 10 months out of the year (Boughton et al., ).
Costa Rica averaged an annual loss of % of its forests, largely due to the vast expansion of cattle ranching. By , about 83% of Costa Rica forests had been felled (cut down), mostly for beef production, and much of that was shipped to the U.S. for use as hamburger (Kricher, , p. ). 62% of deforested Amazon land ends up as cattle pasture (09/04/) 62 percent of the area deforested in the Brazilian Amazon until is occupied by cattle pasture, reports a new satellite-based analysis by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE) and its Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa).
62% of deforested Amazon land ends up as cattle pasture (09/04/) 62 percent of the area deforested in the Brazilian Amazon until is occupied by cattle pasture, reports a new satellite-based analysis by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE) and its Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa).
In order for meat industries to be able to distribute their products to consumers, they need the cattle to be raised, fed, and grown and of course, cattle ranchers need a place to raise their cattle.
In order for these ranchers to have space for the cattle to do so, trees are actually being cut down to make room for these pastures. Costa Rica averaged an annual loss of % of its forests, largely due to the vast expansion of cattle ranching.
By , about 83% of Costa Rica forests had been felled (cut down), mostly for beef production, and much of that was shipped to the U.S. for use as hamburger (Kricher, , p. ).