Evaluating the carbon footprint and sequestration potential of tropical cattle systems: a comparative life cycle approach
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Advancing sustainable beef systems requires understanding the carbon footprint of livestock production. Mexico is responsible for high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the livestock sector, an activity that extends across large areas of land in its tropical region. This study aimed to assess the contributions of two cattle grazing systems to climate change and to their carbon (C) sequestration potential, as well as to estimate their GHG balance. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the ISO 14067 standard based on the Life Cycle Assessment methodology. The “cradle-to-farm gate” approach was applied to evaluate the carbon footprint of 1 kg of live weight of calf, including C sequestration in two beef cow-calf grazing systems in the Mexican tropics: monoculture (MC) and silvopastoral (SP). Data collected from six cattle ranches (three monoculture and three silvopastoral), in the State of Yucatán, Mexico, were used. The system boundaries included pasture, feed supplements, agrochemicals, fossil fuels, electricity, and pesticides. The potential soil C equestration was estimated from the Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Tool version 9 of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The results revealed that MC systems exhibited lower GHG emissions than the SP, while soil C equestration was higher in the SP. The carbon balance shows a lower carbon footprint for the SP than the MC system, and the uncertainty analysis demonstrates that the SP system had lower variability than the MC. The outcomes of this study could be used to direct policies aimed at reducing the contribution of tropical grazing systems to climate change.
Detalles del artículo
Citas
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2022. doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Pathways towards lower emissions: a global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. Rome (IT); 2023. doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en.
Aryal DR, Ruiz DEM, Marroquín CNT, Ruiz RP, Hernández FG, Venegas JAV, et al. Soil organic carbon depletion from forests to grasslands conversion in Mexico: a review. Agriculture. 2018;8(11):181. doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8110181
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT: land use. Rome (IT); c2023. https://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/RL.
Buratti C, Fantozzi F, Barbanera M, Lascaro E, Chiorri M, Cecchini L. Carbon footprint of conventional and organic beef production systems: an Italian case study. Science of the Total Environment. 2017;576:129–137. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.075
Alemu AW, Janzen H, Little S, Hao X, Thompson DJ, Baron V, et al. Assessment of grazing management on farm greenhouse gas intensity of beef production systems in the Canadian Prairies using life cycle assessment. Agricultural Systems. 2017;158:1–13. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.08.003
Horrillo A, Gaspar P, Escribano M. Organic farming as a strategy to reduce carbon footprint in dehesa agroecosystems: a case study comparing different livestock products. Animals. 2020;10(1):162. doi.org/10.3390/ani10010162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010162
Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio D, Trabucco A, et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:29987. doi.org/10.1038/srep29987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
Ibrahim M, Guerra L, Casasola F, Neely C. Importance of silvopastoral systems for mitigation of climate change and harnessing of environmental benefits. Integrated crop management, vol. 11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Annex I: glossary. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, et al., editors. Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 1791–1820. doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
Nahed-Toral J, Valdivieso-Pérez A, Aguilar-Jiménez R, Cámara-Cordova J, Grande-Cano D. Silvopastoral systems with traditional management in southeastern Mexico: a prototype of livestock agroforestry for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;57:266–279. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.020
Villanueva-Rey P, Vázquez-Rowe I, Arias A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G. The importance of using life cycle assessment in policy support to determine the sustainability of fishing fleets: a case study for the small-scale xeito fishery in Galicia, Spain. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2018;23(5):1091–1106. doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1402-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1402-z
Pe'er G, Rouet-Leduc J, van der Plas F, Helmer W, Moreira F, Rauhut J, et al. How European policies, especially the Common Agricultural Policy, can better support extensive grazing systems: synthesis of interviews with land users and experts. GrazeLIFE deliverable D7.3. [Place unknown]: GrazeLIFE; 2021.
Skersiene A, Slepetiene A, Stukonis V, Norkeviciene E. Accumulation of SOC and carbon fractions in different age red fescue permanent swards. Land. 2023;12(5):1025. doi.org/10.3390/land12051025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051025
Aryal DR, De Jong BHJ, Ochoa-Gaona S, Esparza-Olguin L, Mendoza-Vega J. Carbon stocks and changes in tropical secondary forests of southern Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2014;195:220–230. doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.005
van den Pol-van Dasselaar A, Bastiaansen-Aantjes L, Bogue F, O'Donovan M, Huyghe C. Grassland use in Europe. Versailles (FR): Quae; 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35690/978-2-7592-3146-1
Broom DM, Galindo FA, Murgueitio E. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2013;280(1771):20132025. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2025
Ibrahim M, Villanueva C, Casasola F. Sistemas silvopastoriles como una herramienta para el mejoramiento de la productividad y restauración de la integridad ecológica de paisajes ganaderos. Pastos y Forrajes. 2006;29(4):383–419.
Torres CMME, Jacovine LAG, Nolasco De Olivera Neto S, Fraisse CW, Soares CPB, De Castro Neto F, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in southeastern Brazil. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):16821. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16821-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16821-4
Guzmán F. El sistema silvopastoril intensivo, alternativa de ganadería sostenible. México (MX): UNAM; 2019. https://www.gaceta.unam.mx/el-sistema-silvopastoril-intensivo-alternativa-de-ganaderia-sostenible/
Pelletier N, Pirog R, Rasmussen R. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the upper midwestern United States. Agricultural Systems. 2010;103(6):380–389. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009
Beauchemin KA, Janzen HH, Little SM, McAllister TA, McGinn SM. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada – evaluation using farm-based life cycle assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2011;166–167:663–677. doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.047
Becona G, Astigarraga L, Picasso VD. Greenhouse gas emissions of beef cow-calf grazing systems in Uruguay. Sustainable Agriculture Research. 2014;3(2):89. doi.org/10.5539/sar.v3n2p89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v3n2p89
Rivera-Huerta A, Güereca LP, Rubio MS. Environmental impact of beef production in Mexico through life cycle assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2016;109:44–53. doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.01.020
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040:2006: environmental management –life cycle assessment– principles and framework. Geneva (IT); 2006.
ISO. ISO 14044:2006: environmental management –life cycle assessment– requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TS 14067:2013: greenhouse gases –carbon footprint of products– requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2013.
Petersen BM, Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE, Halberg N. An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013;52:217–224. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.007
Mogensen L, Kristensen T, Nielsen NI, Spleth P, Henriksson M, Swensson C, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from beef production systems in Denmark and Sweden. Livestock Science. 2015;174:126–143. doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.01.021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2015.01.021
Mogensen L, Hermansen J, Nguyen L, Preda T. Environmental impact of beef: by life cycle assessment (LCA)-13 Danish beef production systems. Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture. 2015. 81 pp. http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/DCArapport061.pdf.
Eldesouky A, Mesias FJ, Elghannam A, Escribano M. Can extensification compensate livestock greenhouse gas emissions? A study of the carbon footprint in Spanish agroforestry systems. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;200:28–38. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.279
Escribano M, Horrillo A, Mesías FJ. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration in organic dehesa livestock farms. Does technical-economic management matters? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;372:133779. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133779
Petersen BM, Jensen LS, Hansen S, Pedersen A, Henriksen TM, Sørensen P, et al. CN-SIM: a model for the turnover of soil organic matter. II. Short-term carbon and nitrogen development. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2005;37(2):375–393. doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.08.007
Taghizadeh-Toosi A. C-TOOL: a simple tool for simulation of soil carbon turnover [technical report]. Tjele (DK): Aarhus University; 2015. https://agro.au.dk/fileadmin/DJF/Agro/Medarbejderportal_AGRO/Sektioner/KLIMA/C-TOOL_Documentation.pdf.
Andrén O, Kätterer T. ICBM: the introductory carbon balance model for exploration of soil carbon balances. Ecological Applications. 1997;7(4):1226–1236. doi.org/10.2307/2641210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[1226:ITICBM]2.0.CO;2
Kätterer T, Andrén O. The ICBM family of analytically solved models of soil carbon, nitrogen and microbial biomass dynamics – descriptions and application examples. Ecological Modelling. 2001;136(2–3):191–207. doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00420-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00420-8
Hammar T, Hansson PA, Röös E. Time-dependent climate impact of beef production –can carbon sequestration in soil offset enteric methane emissions? Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;331(October 2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129948
de Figueiredo EB, Jayasundara S, de Oliveira Bordonal R, Berchielli TT, Reis RA, Wagner-Riddle C, et al. Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of beef cattle in three contrasting pasture-management systems in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;142:420–431. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.132
Reyes-Palomo C, Aguilera E, Llorente M, Díaz-Gaona C, Moreno G, Rodríguez-Estévez V. Carbon sequestration offsets a large share of GHG emissions in dehesa cattle production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022;358:131918. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131918
Aguilar-Pérez C, Ku-Vera J, Centurión-Castro F, Garnsworthy PC. Energy balance, milk production and reproduction in grazing crossbred cows in the tropics with and without cereal supplementation. Livestock Science. 2009;122(2–3):227–233. doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.004
Rojo-Rubio R, Vázquez-Armijo JF, Pérez-Hernández P, Mendoza-Martínez GD, Salem AZM, Albarrán-Portillo B, et al. Dual purpose cattle production in Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2009;41(5):715–721. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-008-9249-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-008-9249-8
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 10: emissions from livestock and manure management. In: Calvo Buendia E, Tanabe K, Kranjc A, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Ngarize S, et al., editors. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2019. p.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: Calvo Buendia E, Tanabe K, Kranjc A, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Ngarize S, et al., editors. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2019.
PRé Sustainability. SimaPro LCA software [Internet]. Amersfoort (NL): PRé Sustainability; c2024. https://network.simapro.com/pre/.
Lopes Silva DA, Nunes AO, Piekarski CM, da Silva Moris VA, de Souza LSM, Rodrigues TO. Why using different life cycle assessment software tools can generate different results for the same product system? A cause–effect analysis of the problem. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2019;20:304–315. doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.07.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.07.005
Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PM, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, et al. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I: characterization. RIVM report 2016-0104. Bilthoven (NL): RIVM; 2017. https://www.rivm.nl/en.
Smith C, Nicholls ZRJ, Armour K, Collins W, Forster P, Meinshausen M, et al. The Earth's energy budget, climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity –supplementary material. In: V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, A Pirani, SL Connors, C Péan, S Berger, et al., editors. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [PDF]. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf.
Tichenor NE, Peters CJ, Norris GA, Thoma G, Griffin TS. Life cycle environmental consequences of grass-fed and dairy beef production systems in the northeastern United States. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;142:1619–1628. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.138
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ex-ante carbon-balance tool | EX-ACT – guidelines. Second ed. Rome; 2022. doi.org/10.4060/cc0142en.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 2: Generic methodologies applicable to multiple land-use categories. In: E Calvo Buendia, K Tanabe, A Kranjc, J Baasansuren, M Fukuda, S Ngarize, et al., editors. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Vol. 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2019. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol4.html
Parra AS, Ramirez DYG, Martínez EA. Silvopastoral systems ecological strategy for decreases C footprint in livestock systems of piedmont (Meta), Colombia. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2023;66:e2023220340. doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2023220340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4324-2023220340
Simmons AT, Ingram L, McDonald S, Kardailsky I, Badgery W. Managed grazing incrementally increased soil organic carbon amid larger temporal trends in a temperate pasture system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2026;396:110010. doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2025.110010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2025.110010
Lynch DH, Cohen RDH, Fredeen A, Patterson G, Martin RC. Management of Canadian prairie region grazed grasslands: soil C sequestration, livestock productivity and profitability. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2005;85(2):183–192. doi.org/10.4141/S04-053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/S04-053
Greene H, Kazanski CE, Kaufman J, Steinberg E, Johnson K, Cook-Patton SC, et al. Silvopasture offers climate change mitigation and profit potential for farmers in the eastern United States. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7:1158459. doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1158459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1158459
Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45–50. doi.org/10.1038/nature14324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
Basset-Mens C, Kelliher FM, Ledgard S, Cox N. Uncertainty of global warming potential for milk production on a New Zealand farm and implications for decision making. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2009;14(7):630–638. doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0108-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0108-2
Aryal DR, Morales-Ruiz DE, López-Cruz S, Tondopó-Marroquín CN, Lara-Nucamendi A, Jiménez-Trujillo JA, et al. Silvopastoral systems and remnant forests enhance carbon storage in livestock-dominated landscapes in Mexico. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):17948. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21089-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21089-4
Yoshida H, Clavreul J, Scheutz C, Christensen TH. Influence of data collection schemes on the life cycle assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Research. 2014;56:292–303. doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.014
Hayashi K, Makino N, Shobatake K, Hokazono S. Influence of scenario uncertainty in agricultural inputs on LCA results for agricultural production systems. In: Corson MS, van der Werf HMG, editors. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector (LCA food 2012); 2012 Oct 1–4; Saint-Malo (FR). Rennes: INRA; 2012. p. 200–205.
Hernández-Bautista J, Gómez-Vázquez A, Núñez-González F, Ríos-Rincón F, Mendoza-Martínez G, García-Macías J, et al. Rendimiento de la canal y de los componentes no cárnicos de toretes pardo suizo x cebú en tres sistemas de alimentación en clima cálido húmedo. Universidad y Ciencia. 2009;25(2):173–180.
Stanley PL, Rowntree JE, Beede DK, DeLonge MS, Hamm MW. Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems. 2018;162:249–258. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003
Morel K, Farrié JP, Renon J, Manneville V, Agabriel J, Devun J. Environmental impacts of cow-calf beef systems with contrasted grassland management and animal production strategies in the Massif Central, France. Agricultural Systems. 2016;144:133–143. doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.02.006
Pregitzer KS, Euskirchen ES. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology. 2004;10(12):2052–2077. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00866.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00866.x
Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change. 2016;6(1):42–50. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870
Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens IA, et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature. 2011;478(7367):49–56. doi.org/10.1038/nature10386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386
Georgiou K, Angers D, Champiny RE, Cotrufo MF, Craig ME, Doetterl S, et al. Soil carbon saturation: what do we really know? Global Change Biology. 2025;31(5):e70197. doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70197
License
Veterinaria México OA por Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional.
Basada en una obra en http://www.revistas.unam.mx
- Todos los artículos en Veterinaria México OA se publican bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Unported (CC-BY 4.0). Con esta licencia, los autores retienen el derecho de autor, pero permiten a cualquier usuario compartir, copiar, distribuir, transmitir, adaptar y hacer uso comercial de la obra sin necesidad de proporcionar un permiso adicional, siempre y cuando se otorgue el debido reconocimiento al autor o fuente original.
- Al utilizar esta licencia, los artículos en Veterinaria México OA cubren o exceden todos los requisitos fundacionales e institucionales para ser considerados de Acceso Abierto.
- Los autores no pueden utilizar material protegido por derechos de autor en su artículo a menos que ese material esté también disponible bajo una licencia igualmente generosa.