Integrated crop–livestock systems and beef cattle: risk and economics assessments
Thomaz Zara Mercio
A , Vinícius de Anhaia Camargo A , Tamara Esteves de Oliveira A , Amir Gil Sessim A , Ricardo Gonçalves de Faria Corrêa B , Vinícius do Nascimento Lampert C and Júlio Otávio Jardim Barcellos A D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Department of Animal Science, NESPro, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Bento Gonçalves Avenue 7712, Porto Alegre, RS 91540-000, Brazil.
B Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG), Santo Antônio da Patrulha Campus (SAP), Coronel Francisco Borges de Lima Street, 3005, Santo Antônio da Patrulha, RS 95500-000, Brazil.
C Embrapa Pecuária Sul, Highway BR 153, Km 603, Bagé, RS 96401-970, Brazil.
D Corresponding author. Email: julio.barcellos@ufrgs.br
Animal Production Science 61(16) 1694-1705 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20416
Submitted: 15 July 2020 Accepted: 7 July 2021 Published: 8 September 2021
Abstract
Context: Soybean cultivation is advancing over areas traditionally used for livestock production in southern Brazil, which has led producers to decide whether to diversify their production system or keep it specialised.
Aims: To evaluate the economic returns and risk for beef cattle production, as a specialised activity or an integrated system with soybean, in a high-risk region for soybean crop failures in southern Brazil.
Methods: Using a stochastic model, we evaluated the gross margin per hectare, the risk of negative gross margin per hectare, and the contribution of input variables to the gross margin per hectare variance. Therefore, the following three production systems were simulated: beef cattle production (BP), beef cattle production associated with leasing land for soybean cultivation (BSL), and beef cattle production with soybean cultivation (BSC).
Key results: All systems had a positive average gross margin per hectare, with BSL (US$125.69) having the highest average, followed by BSC (US$77.82) and BP (US$69.54). The highest difference between maximum and minimum values of gross margin per hectare was observed in the BSC, which was the only system to present a negative gross margin per hectare. This is owing to the high variation in the gross margin per hectare generated by soybean production activity, which made BSC the system with the greatest risk. Beef cattle average productivity from the integrated systems was 50% higher than the average observed in BP, with the minimum values in BSL and BSC being only 5.84% lower than the BP average. The risk components linked to soybean productivity (69.54%) and sale prices (17.32%) explained 86.86% of the variation in gross margin per hectare in the BSC. In BP and BSL, stocking rates (40.06% and 42.85% respectively) were the components with the greatest effect, followed by male and female selling prices, which explained 78.13% and 76.71% respectively, of the variation in the gross margin per hectare.
Conclusions: The system with the most significant balance between risk and economic return was BSL, with a higher gross margin per hectare than in BP and lower risk than in BSC.
Implications: Understanding the risk for negative economic results and the factors that affect the gross margin per hectare will help farmers decide whether to integrate soybean cultivation with beef production. These results will help inform the structure of the integration, and implementation of risk mitigation and loss minimisation strategies.
Keywords: decision making, economics, farming systems, modelling: cattle, systems analysis, risk assessment.
References
BACEN (2019) Banco Central do Brasil. Focus – Relatório de Mercado. Available at https://www.bcb.gov.br/publicacoes/focus/04012019 [Verified 10 March 2019]Bell LW, Moore AD (2012) Integrated crop-livestock systems in Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications. Agricultural Systems 111, 1–12.
| Integrated crop-livestock systems in Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bicudo Da Silva RF, Batistella M, Moran E, Celidonio OLM, Millington JDA (2020) The Soybean Trap: Challenges and Risks for Brazilian Producers. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 12
| The Soybean Trap: Challenges and Risks for Brazilian Producers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cavanaugh JE, Neath AA (2019) The Akaike information criterion: Background, derivation, properties, application, interpretation, and refinements WIREs Computational Statistics 11, e1460
| The Akaike information criterion: Background, derivation, properties, application, interpretation, and refinementsCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carvalho PCF, Anghinoni I, Kunrath T, Martins A (2015). A integração soja-pecuária no sul do Brasil. In ‘Integração soja-bovinos de corte no sul do Brasil’. (Ed. UFRGS) pp. 10–12. (UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil)
Carvalho PCF, Peterson CA, Nunes PAA, Martins AP, Souza Filho W, Bertolazi VT, Kunrath TR, Moraes A, Anghinoni I (2018) Animal production and soil characteristics from integrated crop-livestock systems: toward sustainable intensification. Journal of Animal Science 96, 3513–3525.
| Animal production and soil characteristics from integrated crop-livestock systems: toward sustainable intensification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29917103PubMed |
Catacora-Vargas G, Galeano P, Agapito SZ, Aranda D, Palau T, Nodari RO (2012) Soybean production in the Southern Cone of the Americas: update on land and pesticide use, January, 2012. GenØk/UFSC/REDES-AT/BASE-Is, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
CEPEA (2014) Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Beef cattle production costs. Available at http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br [Verified 24 March 2016]
CEPEA (2016) Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada. Soybean prices. Available at http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/br [Verified 24 March 2016]
Chavas J, Kim K (2007) Measurement and sources of economies of scope: a primal approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 163, 411–427.
| Measurement and sources of economies of scope: a primal approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Albuquerque Nunes PAA, Laca EA, Carvalho PCF, Li M, Souza Filho W, Kunrath TR, Martins AP, Gaudin A (2021) Livestock integration into soybean systems improves long-term system stability and profits without compromising crop yields. Scientific Reports 11, 1649
| Livestock integration into soybean systems improves long-term system stability and profits without compromising crop yields.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Almeida JP, Buainain AM (2016) Land leasing and sharecropping in Brazil: determinants, modus operandi and future perspectives. Land Use Policy 52, 206–220.
| Land leasing and sharecropping in Brazil: determinants, modus operandi and future perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Mey YE, Wauters E, Schmid D, Lips M, Vancauteren M, Van Passel S (2016) Farm Household Risk Balancing: Empirical Evidence from Switzerland. European Review of Agriculture Economics 43, 637–662.
| Farm Household Risk Balancing: Empirical Evidence from Switzerland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Moraes A, Carvalho PCF, Anghinoni I, Lustosa S, Costa S, Kunrath T (2014) Integrated crop-livestock systems in the Brazilian subtropics. European Journal of Agronomy 57, 4–9.
| Integrated crop-livestock systems in the Brazilian subtropics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
de Roest K, Ferrari P, Knickel K (2018) Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development pathways. Journal of Rural Studies 59, 222–231.
| Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development pathways.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dick M, Abreu da Silva M, Dewes H (2015) Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 96, 426–434.
| Life cycle assessment of beef cattle production in two typical grassland systems of southern Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dill MD, Pereira GR, Costa JBG, Canellas LC, Peripolli V, Braccini Neto J, Sant’Anna DM, McManus C, Barcellos JOJ (2015) Technologies that affect the weaning rate in beef cattle production systems. Tropical Animal Health and Production 47, 1255–1260.
| Technologies that affect the weaning rate in beef cattle production systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26048693PubMed |
EMATER/RS (2016) Informações agropecuárias, preços semanais. Available at http://www.emater.tche.br/site/servicos/informacoesagropecuarias.php#precos [Verified 5 January 2017]
EMBRAPA (2015) Sistema de observação e monitoramento da agricultura no Brasil. Available at http://mapas.cnpm.embrapa.br/somabrasil/webgis.html [Verified 15 July 2015]
Faria Corrêa RG, Kliemann Neto FJ, Souza JS, Lampert VN, Barcellos JOJ (2018) Enterprise risk management in integrated crop-livestock systems: a method proposition. The Journal of Agricultural Science 156, 1222–1232.
| Enterprise risk management in integrated crop-livestock systems: a method proposition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Feuz DM, Skold MD (1992) Typical farm theory in agricultural research. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2, 43–58.
| Typical farm theory in agricultural research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
FGV (2018) Índice geral de preços – IGP-DI, disponibilidade interna. Available at https://www.portalbrasil.net/igp.htm [Verified 1 February 2019]
FNP (2015) ‘Agrianual – Anuário da agricultura brasileira.’ (IEG: São Paulo, Brazil)
Franzluebbers AJ, Lemaire G, Carvalho PCF, Sulc RM, Dedieu B (2014) Toward agricultural sustainability through integrated crop–livestock systems: environmental outcomes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 190, 1–3.
| Toward agricultural sustainability through integrated crop–livestock systems: environmental outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Garrett RD, Niles MT, Gil JDB, Gaudin A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Assman A, Assman TS, Brewer K, Carvalho PCF, Cortner O, Dynes R, Garbach K, Kebreab E, Mueller N, Peterson C, Reis JC, Snow V, Valentim J (2017) Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: current knowledge and remaining uncertainty. Agricultural Systems 155, 136–146.
| Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: current knowledge and remaining uncertainty.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gerber JF (2014) The role of rural Indebtedness in the evolution of capitalism. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41, 729–747.
| The role of rural Indebtedness in the evolution of capitalism.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ghahramani A, Bowran D (2018) Transformative and systemic climate change adaptations in mixed crop–ivestock farming systems. Agricultural Systems 164, 236–251.
| Transformative and systemic climate change adaptations in mixed crop–ivestock farming systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
IBGE (2019) Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Available at http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/ [Verified 25 January 2019]
Lampert VN, Canozzi MEA, McManus CM, Dill MD, Oliveira TE, Mercio TZ, Teixeira OS, Barcellos JOJ (2020) Modelling beef cattle production systems from the Pampas in Brazil to assess intensification options. Scientia Agrícola 77, e20180263
| Modelling beef cattle production systems from the Pampas in Brazil to assess intensification options.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lehmann N, Briner S, Finger R (2013) The impact of climate and price risks on agricultural land use and crop management decisions. Land Use Policy 35, 119–130.
| The impact of climate and price risks on agricultural land use and crop management decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lemaire G, Franzluebbers A, Carvalho PCF, Dedieu B (2014) Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 190, 4–8.
| Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
López-González FA, Allende R, Lima JMS, Canozzi MEA, Sessim AG, Barcellos JOJ (2020) Intensification of cow-calf production: how does the system respond biologically to energy inputs in a long-term horizon? Livestock Science 237, 104058
| Intensification of cow-calf production: how does the system respond biologically to energy inputs in a long-term horizon?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
MAPA (2019) Ministério da Agricultura Pecuária e Abastecimento – Portaria n° 76, 11 July 2019. Available at https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/portaria-n-76-de-11-de-julho-de-2019-198612468 [Verified 15 July 2019]
Melo LB, Resende Filho MA (2017) Determinantes do risco de crédito rural no Brasil: uma crítica às renegociações das dívidas. Revista Brasileira de Economia 71, 67–91. https://www.scielo.br/j/rbe/a/7sb9fHHyPZvsXgr8xBQgZcP/?lang=pt
Mendonça GG, Simili FF, Augusto JG, Bonacim PM, Menegatto LS, Gameiro AH (2020) Economic gains from crop-livestock integration in relation to conventional systems. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 49, e20190029
| Economic gains from crop-livestock integration in relation to conventional systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meraner M, Finger R (2019) Risk perceptions, preferences and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers. Journal of Risk Research 22, 110–135.
| Risk perceptions, preferences and management strategies: evidence from a case study using German livestock farmers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mishra AK, El-Osta HS (2002) Managing Risk in Agriculture through Hedging and Crop Insurance: What Does a National Survey Reveal? Agricultural Finance Review 62, 135–148.
| Managing Risk in Agriculture through Hedging and Crop Insurance: What Does a National Survey Reveal?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Moraes A, Carvalho PCF, Crusciol CAC, Lang CR, Pariz CM, Deiss L, Sulc M (2019) Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems as a Solution Facing the Destruction of Pampa and Cerrado Biomes in South America by Intensive Monoculture Systems. In ‘Agroecosystem Diversity’. (Eds G Lemaire, PCF Carvalho, S Kronberg, S Recous) pp. 257–273. (Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA)
Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS, Bernabucci U (2010) Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science 130, 57–69.
| Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nùñez-Dominguez R, Cundiff LV, Dickerson GE, Gregory KE, Koch RM (1991) Lifetime production of beef heifers calving first at two vs three years age. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3467–3479.
| Lifetime production of beef heifers calving first at two vs three years age.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1938633PubMed |
Oliveira C, Bremm C, Anghinoni I, Moraes A, Kunrath T, Carvalho PCF (2014) Comparison of an integrated crop–livestock system with soybean only: economic and production responses in southern Brazil. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29, 230–238.
| Comparison of an integrated crop–livestock system with soybean only: economic and production responses in southern Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Oliveira TE, Freitas DS, Gianezini M, Ruviaro CF, Zago D, Mercio TZ, Dias EA, Lampert VN, Barcellos JOJ (2017) Agricultural land-use change in the Brazilian Pampa Biome: the reduction of natural grasslands. Land Use Policy 63, 394–400.
| Agricultural land-use change in the Brazilian Pampa Biome: the reduction of natural grasslands.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell DJ, Malcolm LR, Kingwell RS (2000) Are we risking too much? Perspectives on risk in farm modelling. Agricultural Economics 23, 69–78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016951500000058X
Pereira PRRX, Hasenack H, Pereira GR, Dewes H, Canellas LC, Oliveira TE, Barcellos JOJ (2018) Climate change and beef supply chain in southern Brazil. The Journal of Agricultural Science 156, 731–738.
| Climate change and beef supply chain in southern Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Peterson CA, Bell LW, Carvalho PCF, Gaudin ACM (2020) Resilience of an integrated crop–livestock system to climate change: a simulation analysis of cover crop grazing in southern Brazil. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 604099
| Resilience of an integrated crop–livestock system to climate change: a simulation analysis of cover crop grazing in southern Brazil.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Poffenbarger H, Artz G, Dahlke G, Edwards W, Hanna M, Russell J, Sellers H, Liebman M (2017) An Economic analysis of integrated crop–livestock systems in Iowa, USA. Agricultural Systems 157, 51–69.
| An Economic analysis of integrated crop–livestock systems in Iowa, USA.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pujari YD (2011) Rural Indebtedness: causes and consequences. Indian Streams Research Journal 1, 124–127.
Roese AD, Zielinski EC, May De Mio LL (2020) Plant diseases in afforested crop–livestock systems in Brazil Agricultural Systems 185, 102935
| Plant diseases in afforested crop–livestock systems in BrazilCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Russelle MP, Entz MH, Franzluebbers AJ (2007) Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99, 325–334.
| Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ryschawy J, Choisis N, Choisis J, Joannon A, Gibon A (2012) Mixed crop–livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6, 1722–1730.
| Mixed crop–livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22717157PubMed |
Shannon HD, Motha RP (2015) Managing weather and climate risks to agriculture in North America, Central America and the Caribbean. Weather and Climate Extremes 10, 50–56.
| Managing weather and climate risks to agriculture in North America, Central America and the Caribbean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Turner B, Rhoades R, Tedeschi L, Hanagriff R, McCuistion K, Dunn B (2013) Analyzing ranch profitability from varying cow sales and heifer replacement rates for beef cow-calf production using system dynamics. Agricultural Systems 114, 6–14.
| Analyzing ranch profitability from varying cow sales and heifer replacement rates for beef cow-calf production using system dynamics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Velandia M, Rejesus RM, Knight TO, Sherrick BJ (2009) Factors Affecting Farmers’ Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: the Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41, 107–123.
| Factors Affecting Farmers’ Utilization of Agricultural Risk Management Tools: the Case of Crop Insurance, Forward Contracting, and Spreading Sales.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
