Backgrounding strategy effects on farm productivity, profitability and greenhouse gas emissions of cow-calf systems in the flooding pampas of Argentina

Beef grazing systems need to improve their environmental sustainability while increasing productivity to meet future demand. In a context of climate and prices variability, the main aim of our study was to explore the current trend in cow-calf operations of including backgrounding strategies on productivity, profitability and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a representative beef cattle system from the Laprida Basin (Flooding Pampas, Argentina), applying an integrated assessment with modelling tools. The mean liveweight gain (LWG) of pure cow-calf systems was lower than systems that included backgrounding, it decreased as stocking rates (SR) increased, and it was increased when the stocker contribution (0.2 to 0.4 steer/cow rate), sales weights (steers 390 kg LW and heifers 320 kg LW) and supplementation level (>1% LW) were higher. Liveweight production and operating profits showed a curvilinear response to SR, reaching a plateau close to 0.5 cows ha−1. As expected, GHG emissions intensity (EI; kg CO2e kg−1 LW produced) was higher in pure cow-calf scenarios. If a grazing intensity (i.e. ratio between biomass removed by grazing and biomass available for grazing) beyond 0.6 was to be avoided to prevent long-term overgrazing and trade-offs among the variables assessed, the best option was to decrease SR to 0.45 cows ha−1. On such stocking rate, LWG was improved by 8% (±SD; ±3%), but LW production, operating profits, and GHG emissions intensity were reduced by 1% (±2%), 9% (±4%) and 10% (±1%), respectively, compared with 0.50 cows ha−1. The best risk-efficient combinations were depicted by backgrounding options and the variation of profit was mainly explained by prices variability (CV = 40 ± 3%) and, to a lesser extent by climate variability (CV = 11 ± 3%). Therefore, backgrounding strategies provide opportunities to farmers to increase farm productivity and profitability at the lowest risk for a given level of expected return, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product.Fil: Bilotto, Franco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; ArgentinaFil: Recavarren, Paulo Mario. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Agencia de Extension Rural Olavarria.; ArgentinaFil: Vibart, Ronaldo. Grasslands Research Centre; Nueva ZelandaFil: Machado, Claudio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tandil. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Gobernación. Comision de Investigaciones Científicas. Centro de Investigación Veterinaria de Tandil; Argentin