RESEARCH ARTICLE          

Low-carbon agricultural technologies improve forage and feed production in the Caatinga biome, Brazil: Characteristics, comparison, effects of climate change, resilience, local development, and food security

Vanina Zini Antunes de Mattos1, * ; Bruna Guerreiro Tavares3 ; Renata da Costa Barreto3 ;

Giselle Parno Guimarães3 ; Marcos Aurélio Vasconcelos de Freitas1, 2

1 Programa de Planejamento Energético (PPE), Instituto Alberto Luiz Coimbra de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Engenharia (COPPE), Av. Horácio Macedo, nº 2030 Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), CEP: 21.941-598. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

2 Instituto Virtual Internacional de Mudanças Globais (IVIG), Av. Pedro Calmon, s/nº, anexo ao Centro de Tecnologia da Coppe – Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), CEP: 21.031-596. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

3 Projeto Rural Sustentável Caatinga (PRS Caatinga), Fundação Brasileira para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável (FBDS), Rua Engenheiro Álvaro Niemeyer, nº 76, CEP: 22610-180. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

* Corresponding author: vanina.antunes@ppe.ufjr.br (V. Z. A. de Mattos).

Received: 1 October 2024. Accepted: 4 November 2024. Published: 12 November 2024.

Abstract

Adjustments in Brazilian livestock are necessary to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since the largest source of methane comes from ruminants’ enteric fermentation, and of carbon from deforestation. Low-carbon agriculture technologies (LCAT) contribute to mitigating these emissions and this study evaluates the role of these technologies on ruminant forage production in Caatinga. A Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threats analysis was used to elucidate the main features, followed by an Analytic Hierarchical Process, ranking the LCAT, and a risk analysis. Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forest System (ICLFS) is the most recommended technology, followed by Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and Recovery of Degraded Areas with Pastures (RDA-P). The results can aid in the choice of the LCAT to be implemented by the smallholder in Caatinga, demonstrating the need to strengthen rural technical assistance, so that there is a real benefit to the producer and the environment.

Keywords: GHG Emission; Semiarid; ICLS; Ruminants; SWOT; AHP; Production Factors.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2024.046

Cite this article:

de Mattos, V. Z. A., Tavares, B. G., Barreto, R. da C., Guimarães, G. P., & de Freitas, M. A. V. (2024). Low-carbon agricultural technologies improve forage and feed production in the Caatinga biome, Brazil: Characteristics, comparison, effects of climate change, resilience, local development, and food security. Scientia Agropecuaria, 15(4), 629-639.

1. Introduction

Concerns with the increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have encouraged public policies and international agreements creation, promoting mitigation actions and adaptation to climate change, with Low-Carbon Agriculture Technologies (LCAT) (Rathmann et al., 2017). Among the mitiga­tion actions are native forest preservation, degraded areas recovery, deforestation reduction, and sustainable agriculture.

LCAT are based on economic, social, and environ­mental sustainability and related to low-energy consumption, circular and organic farming, (Xiong et al., 2016, Su et al., 2017). They can reduce natural resource damage, recover ecosystem quality and services, enable sustainable farming by minimizing climate change effects (droughts, loss of fertility, re­duced water access), and enhance resilience, local economy, and food security (Alvalá et al., 2019; Anuga et al., 2020; Shajedul, 2021). These are im­portant issues for Caatinga farming to be produc­tive and resilient to climate change (Rangel et al., 2020).

The employment of LCAT in Asia has enhanced ag­ricultural economic growth and individual farmers’ welfare (Xiong et al., 2016; Chi et al., 2024). In China, one of the most widely used LCAT is NTS, which covers the soil with crushed straw (Hui et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023), further detailed below.

Agriculture, especially livestock farming, is the sec­tor with the main methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, as observed in China (Su et al., 2017; Shajedul, 2021). LCAT can help different coun­tries reduce emissions in this sector, selecting the appropriate technology for each region regarding economic, social, and ecological features (Shajedul, 2021; Chi et al., 2024). Indeed, Anuga et al. (2020) highlighted agroforestry, rotational farming, im­proved livestock breeding, and intensification of ru­minants’ diets as strategic practices to be adopted in Africa to contribute to GHG emission mitigation.

Even so, animal production is the main economic activity in the Caatinga biome, especially small ru­minants like goats and sheep because they present greater drought resistance than rainfed agriculture, ensuring food security for producers and income (Araújo Filho, 2014, Signor et al., 2022). Tradition­ally, ruminant grazing in Caatinga is carried out ex­tensively, which raises animals’ metabolism and, considering the diet type, can increase enteric fer­mentation and methane (CH4) emission (Barbosa, et al., 2017). This is because fermentation depends on the feed quality.

Indeed, according to some authors, (Eugène et al., 2021, Fouts et al., 2022) enteric digestion can be re­duced with feed adjustments. Low-nutritional fiber has low digestibility and takes longer to digest and ferment; so, it can produce more methane than the intake of high-nutritional quality, which spends little time in the rumen (Barbosa et al., 2017). On the other hand, despite the high fiber and low digesti­bility, Caatinga plants can contribute to decreased methane emission, due to the high amount of tan­nin, which inhibits bacteria action in the rumen (Eugène et al., 2021). Besides that, the small rumi­nants, more abundant in the biome, emit less me­thane than cattle.

LCAT were selected from the ABC-Plan (Brasil, 2012) and Newton et al. (2016): Integrated-Crop-Livestock-Forest-System (ICLFS), up to three differ­ent productive systems in the same area, in sustain­able production, with crop rotation and consortium (Vinholis et al., 2021). It increases productivity, prod­uct diversity, and income, without deforestation (Gontijo Neto et al., 2018, Rangel et al., 2020). It is indicated to recover degraded areas, including pas­tures, because it enhances soil quality, pests’ natural control, and reduction of fertilizers (Almeida et al., 2013, Florida Rofner et al., 2022). Integrations seek to reduce overgrazing and thermal comfort for an­imals (Rangel et al., 2020); and increase forage availability, cultivating crops and pruning Caatinga native vegetation (Miccolis et al., 2019). Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), enables carbon conser­vation (plants and soil), improves biodiversity, and rivers protection, encourages smallholders to keep the native vegetation; involves extensive livestock breeding (Araújo Filho, 2014). In Caatinga, SFM by vegetation pruning, thinning, and enrichment, in­creases forage up to 80%, providing sustainable livestock (Cavalcante et al., 2013). Recovery of Degraded Areas with Pastures (RDA-P) aims to re-establish natural flows of a pasture to become pro­ductive again with improvements in soil structure and fertility, and increases in carrying capacity, productivity, biomass, and carbon in the soil (Feltran-Barbieri & Féres, 2021). Usually, RDA-P is made only with forage grass but, at the Caatinga it should be done also with rangeland legumes and shrubs or small trees of natives or adapted species used as forage (Pinheiro & Nair, 2018). Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) in the Caatinga is usually made by intercropping or rotating legumes with other crops, called Green Manure, it is an efficient strategy for the recovery of degraded areas, as it provides nitrogen to plants without the use of ad­ditives, generating savings and mitigating GHG emissions, especially nitrous oxide, N2O (Fouts, 2022, Fernández-Ortega et al., 2023). Green ma­nure can also be used as pasture, supplying a for­age of high nutritional quality, to increase livestock productivity (Cavalcante et al., 2013). No-till System (NTS) aims not to revolve the soil over, thus avoid­ing carbon and nitrogen losses, thus increasing crop productivity (Malhi et al., 2021). Its main tech­niques are permanent soil covering (with straw from previous crop), crop rotation, intercropping, and di­rect seeding (Fernández-Ortega et al., 2023; Hui et al., 2023). According to Abdalla et al. (2016), NTS is an effective measure for mitigating carbon dioxide (CO2) losses in dry soils. Even if BFN and NTS can provide forage, this is not their main goal; moreo­ver, they are usually included in the previous LCAT, so they were not considered in the analysis.

This study aimed to understand how LCAT contrib­ute to ruminants’ forage production in the Caatinga, comparing them regarding the increase in productivity while decreasing GHG emissions.2.

Methodology

Caatinga is the only exclusively Brazilian biome (Figure 1), with a semiarid climate, with low precipi­tation and irregular, sporadic periods of prolonged drought; high temperatures; high aridity index, and water deficit (Alvalá et al., 2019). It hosts several en­demic species of animals and plants, considered the highest-biodiversity dry forest in the world, charac­terized by cacti and shrubs with whitish branches and deciduous leaves, adaptations to withstand drought (Tabarelli et al., 2017). However, part of its native vegetation and resources have been deteri­orating due to its intensive use in agriculture, mon­oculture crops, and extensive livestock (Tabarelli et al., 2017, Menezes & Silvas, 2024).

To avoid these devastating productive systems, the LCAT play an important role in ruminants’ forage production in the Caatinga. This study, as previously explained, will only evaluate ICLFS, SFM, and RDA-P.

To better comprehend the relationship of rumi­nant’s forage-production with GHG mitigation emission, a literature review was conducted, further a Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat (SWOT) analysis was built, followed by an Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) combined with a risk analysis. Topics on GHG emission by agriculture and livestock, the vulnerability of these productions re­lated to climate change, and Low-carbon agricul­ture in Caatinga were raised. A survey with 31 stakeholders that work at Caatinga, was held and consisted of technical, economic, financial, social, and cultural themes on smallholders’ produc-tion and the previous topics mentioned above (Figure 2). These topics and the survey served as inputs for the analyses made in MS Excel files.

Figure 1. Delimitation of Caatinga biome. Sourced from: IBGE/INSA, 2000.

Figure 2. Survey participants and stakeholders’ breakdown.

The SWOT analysis highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of LCAT, and the opportunities and threats related to forage production in the Caatinga (Schäler et al., 2019). From the AHP it was possible to measure how much one LCAT was preferred over the others, according to their importance on forage production for ruminants with the lowest GHG emission. For this purpose, a hierarchic struc­ture and a parity comparison between criteria and sub-criteria were made, analysis steps in Figure 3 (Sahani, 2021). The pairwise comparison weights were based on Saaty’s Fundamental Scale (Saaty, 2005) and chosen considering SWOT results, stake­holders’ survey, and the authors’ judgment. If the Consistency Ratio (CR) was higher than 10% (CR ≤ 0.10), “False”, the pairwise comparison had to be re­peated, to be consistent with reality (Saaty, 2005), Figure 3.

Figure 3. AHP flowchart of the analysis.

Finally, the AHP was combined with a risk analysis, where sub-criteria were valued regarding their impact, probability, and control (Tolmasquim et al., 2020). These variables’ influence was determined according to a scale of values judged by the authors based on data inputs and previous analysis outputs.

Thus, the following were evaluated: the effect of the sub-criterion on forage production for ruminants with GHG mitigation (Impact); the possibility of this impact actually occurring (probability), and, finally, how much control the smallholder has over this impact; at the end, a ranking of LCAT was obtained.

3. Results and discussion

LCATs' characteristics assessed and their employa­bility, according to the Caatinga features, were rep­resented in the SWOT matrices (Table 1). Besides LCAT strength, to mitigate GHG emission, produc­tive gain and increase in smallholder’s income, ICLFS and SFM also have a short payback time on forage production.

The relationship of the criteria definition with the items’ Strengths and Weaknesses from the SWOT analysis and their influence on the five criteria stip­ulated for the AHP is shown in Table 2.

From the data inputs and SWOT outputs, besides the five criteria, nine sub-criteria were defined for the AHP, detailed in Table 3 to analyze LCAT.

From the five criteria, ten parity comparisons were made based on their importance about the study objective, presented in the judgment matrix (Table 4).

Forage Supply represented 45% of the total weight among the criteria, followed by Natural Capital (27%), Human Capital (17%), Physical Capital (7%), and GHG mitigation (4%). Natural Capital is the main production factor since forage production is directly related to natural re­source availability. Regarding Human and Physical Capital, the former is more important, due to famil­iar agriculture, and the need for technical assistance for LCAT to be successful. Physical Capital can sup­port operational labor increasing production, but some inputs can be purchased through coopera­tives. Finally, the GHG mitigation criterion, refers to a refinement of which LAT would be the most effi­cient mitigating these emissions.

With the risk analysis, it was possible to establish the contribution of each sub-criteria regarding Impact, Probability, and Control (Figure 4).

The three LCAT evaluated were ranked by compar­ing them in relation to each sub-criterion, Figure 4.

The criterion Forage Supply was divided into two sub-criteria: forage variety with a slightly higher im­portance than forage quantity, Figure 4. In both, ICLFS offered the highest forage supply for rumi­nants in the Caatinga (Table 5). With this LAT, dif­ferent plants are grown, enabling a selected forage, with nutritional and digestibility issues combined to obtain better food and concentrate, as suggested by Barbosa et al. (2017). This greater diversity is due to the presence of crops and forests, with cacti, woody legumes, crop residues, maize, and grasses, in nature or silage and hay, as mentioned by Vinholis et al. (2021).

Table 1

SWOT matrix of the LCAT (ICLFS, SFM, and RDA-P)

Table 2

SWOT outputs and the AHP criteria related to them

Table 3

Description of Criteria and Sub-criteria of Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) and its relationship with risk analysis

Table 4

Criteria judgment matrix

Figure 4. Risk analysis decision map, based on Tolmasquim et al. (2020).

The integration of these plants, destined to feed an­imals, is called fodder banks. This is an important hay resource for animals during the dry season, avoiding overgrazing. The pioneering model was the Caatinga, Buffel Grass, and Legumes (CBL) inte­gration, developed by Embrapa, in experimental areas (Rangel et al., 2020). Another usual Caatingas fodder bank is cacti, because it is drought resistant and provides water to animals, it has great im­portance in goats’ nutrition (Pinheiro & Nair, 2018, Socolowski et al., 2021, Lima et al., 2023). It can also be integrated into annual crops and substitutes corn in concentrate to be offered with forage, according to Barbosa et al. (2017).

Table 5

Criteria and Sub-criteria relevance regarding each LCAT.

SFM has the second largest Forage Supply because it is made in a structured forest area, with a diversity and quantity of plants that can be directly exploited. With the SFM there is more quantity of forage than variety (Table 5), and this one can increased with the enrichment technique, planting grass (buffel, elephant grass, ...) and arboreal species, as Caatinga native legumes: Mimosa caesalpiniifolia (“sabiá”), Bauhinia cheilantha (“mororó”), Croton conduplicatus (“quebra-faca”), or exotic (Leucaena sp. and Gliricidia sepium).

Caatinga is a source of forage in the three vegeta­tion strata, especially to feed goats and sheep and to resist the regional climate conditions. Its man­agement is widely used in livestock to increase for­age supply by changing the structure and floristic composition, with the techniques of pruning, thin­ning, and planting ruminant forage, allowing a sus­tainable production in semiarid, avoiding deforesta­tion, as also previously related (Araújo Filho, 2014). These techniques make it possible to give hay and silage to the herd when it is in the paddock, as well as in the dry season, and sell the surplus (Cavalcante et al., 2013).

RDA-P at Caatinga biome should be recovered with a variety of plants in the three strata and not just grass, as mentioned above, to then produce a vari­ety of forage over time, because the area can be designated to fodder bank and annual crops during the fallow. However, a longer time is required for the soil and vegetation in the RDA-P to be estab­lished, that’s why it had a lower weight. Thus, RDA-P can have in the beginning a lower forage supply, because it would take more time to be established. Another important consideration regarding RDA-P’s low weight, compared to SFM and ICLFS, is that even considering these two technologies also from the implementation until their establishment, from 3 to 5 years (Araújo Filho, 2014, Gontijo Neto et al., 2018), the environment they are located was already productive, and was just adjusted for the technol­ogy, unlike RDA-P, where soil enhancement neces­sarily needs to be done. At the beginning of RDA-P, the fodder bank system can be prioritized with­out animal entry so the soil can be decompressed, and its structure and nutrients recovered and allow the seeds bank to grow and help the recovery of the pasture.

In addition, ICLFS and SFM can increase smallhold­ers’ income due to the diversity of extra agricultural and forest products they can offer (Brasil, 2012). Vinholis et al. (2021) identified the integration crop-livestock (ICL) to ensure economic viability and to improve smallholders’ quality of life quality in SFM, the Caatinga enrichment technique can be alternated with planting food crops (maize, beans, cassava) to partially cover costs and strengthen family food security (Araújo Filho, 2014).

Natural Capital was divided into geophysical and geochemical factors and biological factors, the for­mer sub-criteria being more representative, Figure 4. In this criterion, ICLFS presented greater rele­vance regarding abiotic factors, because as it is done in a cultivated area, the soil is already struc­tured and nourished (Iwata et al., 2021, Signor et al., 2022). ICLFS can also be implemented in associa­tion with Social Technologies such as water harvest­ing and storage technologies and rainfed, as in SFM. Regarding soil conservation, fodder banks, and animal grazing rotation in the managed forest are alternatives to avoid Caatinga degrada­tion. In both ICLFS and SFM, paddocks are neces­sary for a herd rotation in the pastures or in the Caatinga vegetation, with natural fertilization of their waste, allowing the plants to regenerate, by avoiding overgrazing, which has modified the flo­ristic composition and increased soil compaction (Cavalcante et al., 2013, Rathmann et al., 2017). Another important strategy to improve soil fertility is planting legumes, herbaceous or arboreals, as green manure.

Regarding biological factors, SFM has the greatest weight, as it is a native forest that, even anthropized, has better established ecological flows and ecosys­tem services than ICLFS (Table 5). It is important to highlight that the tree component in ICLFS helps to reduce soil and water loss and it is relevant for eco­logical complexity because trees enhance organic matter and the biome recovery (Torres et al., 2020). Thus, the presence of trees promotes sustainable production and biodiversity, leading to a natural increase in productivity (Gontijo Neto et al., 2018).

Finally, RDA-P showed considerably lower weight in respect to Natural Capital, because it is an area poor in natural resources and, consequently, with low biodiversity, aspects that will not yet be re-established to the point of being higher than in the other two LCAT environments, during the period considered (Table 5).

Human Capital, divided into the sub-criteria of property management labor and operational labor, showed that technical and planning issues have greater representativeness (Figure 4). A new pro­ductive technology should be implemented in an organized approach with technical assistance following up (Suela et al., 2023). Operational Labor is important and is considered the main contributor to changes in carbon emissions in China by Su et al. (2017), but it can be adapted or substituted by hiring extra workers at specific seasons or using machinery and equipment. In this criterion, the lower the need for labor, which involves time and financial re­sources, the greater the weight one LAT had over the other in the pairwise analysis.

Therefore, SFM was the best-performing technol­ogy, regarding both management and operational labor (Table 5), although it requires qualified labor for the specific machinery. On the other hand, ICLFS and RDA-P had lower percentages, because both need a lot of planning and technical assistance, as well as more operational labor for soil care, crop, seedlings, and harvesting. However, RDA-P had a lower weight than ICLFS due to the greater care taken in land preparation, soil restructuring, plant­ing, and monitoring the development of the seedlings.

Regarding Physical Capital, the sub-criterion per­manent assets had a higher weight than consuma­ble materials (Figure 4) and, as they are related to expenses, followed the same of Human Capital: the lower the need, the higher LCAT weight. SFM pre­sented the best performance because, although it needs to fence the area and use specific machinery, the costs of materials and goods for land prepara­tion and planting in ICLFS and RDA-P are higher.

Regarding consumables, SFM performed even better than the other LCAT, because it needs less inputs, only required for the enrichment technique, using seedlings, seeds, and phosphate fertilization, if necessary. ICLFS appears in second place, as it has a lower demand than RDA-P, which requires more inputs to recover soil and vegetation, while ICLFS generates its inputs due to the integration (Table 5). It should be noted that, although ICLFS and RDA-P require additional staff and technical support for their implementation, the use of external labor, machinery, and inputs decreases over time, according to Vinholis et al. (2021).

The Physical Capital was estimated in 1 hectare of Caatinga for each LAT, and the values varied considerably within the same technology, due to the diverse possible arrangements, especially in ICLFS, that was analyzed with an intermediate estimated value. And, although Physical Capital was less important than the other factors in the ranking, its importance is due to the financial limitations of smallholders and the bureaucracy of credit access.

Finally, related to mitigating GHG Emissions, the ICLFS showed a significantly higher estimated mitigation potential due to cattle in confinement, which reduces the enteric methane emitted (Rathmann et al., 2017). These authors also recommended reducing the size of the herd and anticipating slaughter, for a shorter-lived herd and thus lower enteric methane emissions. With SFM and RDA-P semi-extensive breeding could also be possible, but it is not traditionally common and would be more difficult to implement.

Furthermore, the diversity of the forage offered, aiming to provide more nutrients, greater digesti­bility, and lower methane emission, can be obtained in the semi-extensive breeding, that takes advantage of the natural pasture of the biome, with the animals in confinement part of the time (Signor et al., 2022), favoring also waste management, which can be done in a ICLFS.

SFM presented a slightly higher potential for mitigating GHG emission than the RDA-P (Table 5), both reduce deforestation, but SFM is applied in a native vegetation that minimizes the emission of enteric methane from food supplied with this technology. This is because tannin, present in Caatinga vegetation, inhibits methanogenesis and woody legumes have high digestibility for the ruminant; therefore, their ingestion generates less rumen methane and improves animal productivity (Eugène et al., 2021). This is also valid for ICLFS which has plants rich in tannin as SFM and moreover, it has other species that contribute to a balanced diet for the ruminant animals.

In fact, according to experts, SFM has reduced deforestation and burning, contributing to carbon maintenance in the ecosystem. However, in some regions of the semi-arid, there are still many smallholders who suppress native trees to plant crops or grass. Others still use fire to clear the land, which disrupts the soil, reduces the amount of organic matter, increases CO2 emissions, and decreases the rate of vegetation regeneration (Iwata et al., 2021). In those localities where these degrading practices are still rooted, it becomes more difficult to convince the smallholders to implement a LCAT or to produce sustainably (Silva et al., 2020). On the other hand, where goat farming predominates, deforestation does not happen at the same rate, because it is believed that the animals are used to grazing in the Caatinga and are more resistant to drought (Milhorance et al., 2022). But goat livestock needs to be management in environmentally sustainable way, as keeping 400 to 800 trees/ha, recommended in an SFM, such as legumes: Caesalpinia bracteosa (“catingueira”), Aspidosperma pyrifolium (“pereiro”) and Mimosa tenuiflora (“jurema-preta”), which have high protein content, serve as shadow and provide nitrogen to the soil (Araújo Filho, 2014, Milhorance et al., 2022).

Among the Brazilian NDC targets are a 40% defor­estation reduction in the country, the recovery of native vegetation by 2030, and the increase of car­bon stock in the soil through the expansion of inte­grated systems and the recovery of degraded pas­tures (Rathmann et al., 2017). Although, according to Signor et al. (2022), the Caatinga emits less GHG than other biomes; it is, by its characteristics, a key biome in the goals of reducing deforestation and desertification, requiring investments to implement projects with regenerative and conservative agriculture.

In this study, the LCAT mitigation GHG emissions potential (MtCO2e) was estimated based on the In­tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) in the report "Mitigation Trajectories and Pub­lic Policy Instruments for Achieving Brazilian Targets in the Paris Agreement" (Rathmann et al., 2017). The information used is related to the mitigation poten­tial of the agricultural and land use change (AFOLU) sectors, whose topics were correlated with the LCAT used here.

By the above, the ICLFS appears as the best alter­native to produce forage for ruminants in the Caatinga and, at the same time, mitigate GHG emis­sions (Table 5), and it is also an umbrella technology because it incorporates other LCAT, like BNF and NTS. SFM comes second, due to the forage an es­tablished forest provides, and the RDA-P comes third, because of the investment and inputs needed to re-establish the area and the uncertainties of the payback time and success in its recovery.

With RDA-P, by making a misused area productive, the smallholder will have, in addition to the eco­nomic return, ecological benefits: restoration of wa­ter flows and carbon sequestration in vegetation, avoiding deforestation (Malhi et al., 2021), mainly when it is made with arboreal and shrubs species. One difficulty in implementing this technology is to convince cattle smallholders to plant trees and shrubs, as they traditionally raise their livestock with grass pastures, even if grass alone is not resilient to a semiarid climate. An incentive would be to point out that forest restoration would not be a burden but a bonus for them (Miccolis et al., 2019). There­fore, technical assistance is needed to demonstrate that intercropping provides biodiverse pastures more resilient to climatic and soil adversities (Socolowski et al., 2021). And that the best way to recover a degraded area for pasture or forage banking in the Caatinga is with ICLFS.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the lack of technical assistance, credit lines, and public policies tends to stimulate empirical knowledge diffusion, where the smallholder can change his production mode within his financial limitations (Nasuti et al., 2013). One strategy is to diversify income with new products, and benefits of ICLFS. Nevertheless, in­vesting in qualified technical assistance for LCAT im­plementation is necessary and urgent.

But before that, it is necessary to offer training to qualify technicians and smallholders for a successful implementation of the technology, its development, and consolidation, as realized by PRS Caatinga (Ciancio et al., 2024). An important way to stimulate LAT adoption and its consolidation is its inclusion in the local and national markets by integrating it into the local productive arrangements.

4. Conclusions

This study elucidates how LCAT can interact with forage production in the Caatinga. ICLFS was iden­tified as the LAT most recommended to increase the forage supply, followed by SFM and RDA-P. SFM has an important representativeness because Caatinga’s vegetation is a natural source of forage, but it needs to be adjusted with vegetation and an­imal management, to increase forage production and conserve the biome. Although RDA-P is more difficult to implement, it is a fundamental technol­ogy for pasture recovery and conservation of the biome, when it is done with arboreal and shrub species as in an ICLFS.

GHG emission mitigation measurement for each LAT is complex due to the scarcity of data for the Caatinga. The AFOLU sector mitigation options mention the LCAT assessed here, but some items had to be shared across more than one technology and to be interpreted for an estimation. This re­search area should be better studied, with local GHG emission measurements.

Finally, a fragile climate-stressed biome as Caatinga is an important example of necessary adaptations and it is expected that new public policies and credit lines, associated with technical assistance, will be ex­panded to the biome, to subsidize more studies and implementation of LCAT in the region.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted under the Sustainable Rural Project (PRS) - Caatinga, funded by the UK Government's International Climate Fund in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA) as institutional beneficiary, and executed by The Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development (FBDS). Thanks to Coordination for Higher Education Staff Development (CAPES) for the PhD scholarship. We acknowledge Professor Luiz Pinguelli Rosa (in memorian) for his intellectual contributions to this article. We are grateful to Paulo Maurício Senra for the suggestions on the analysis review. We also thank the experts who contributed with their experiences in Caatinga.

Author Contributions

V. Z. A. Mattos: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. B. G. Tavares: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. R. C. Barreto: Methodology, Resources, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. G. G. Parno: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources. M. A. V. Freitas: Supervision, Validation, Visualization.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ORCID

V. Z. A. de Mattos  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4476-2237

B. G. Tavares  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4871-5251

R. da C. Barreto  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3238-1720

G. P. Guimarães  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2400-2655

M. A. V. de Freitas  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9242-1288

References

Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., & Chaplot, V. (2016). No-tillage lessens soil CO2 emissions the most under arid and sandy soil conditions: results from a meta-analysis. Biogeosciences, 13, 3619–3633. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-3619-2016

Almeida, R. G., Andrade, C. M. S., Paiullo, D. S. C., Fernandes, P. C. C., Cavalcante, A. C. R., Barbosa, R. A., & Valle, C. B. (2013). Brazilian agroforestry systems for cattle and sheep. Tropical Grasslands Forrajes Tropicales, 1(2), 175–183.

Alvalá, R. C. S., Cunha, A. P. M. A., Brito, S. S. B., Seluchi, M. E., Marengo, J. A., Moraes, O. L. L., & Carvalho, M. A. (2019). Drought monitoring in the Brazilian Semiarid region. Earth Sciences - Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720170209

Anuga, S. W., Chirinda, N., Nukpezah, D., Ahenkan, A., Andrieu, N., & Gordon, C. (2020). Towards low carbon agriculture: Systematic-narratives of climate-smart agriculture mitigation potential in Africa. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100015

Araújo Filho, J. A. (2014). Proposta para a implementação do manejo pastoril sustentável da Caatinga. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA): Brasília, Brazil, 135 p.

Barbosa, A. L. Voltolini, T. V., Menezes, D. R., Moraes, S. A., Nascimento, J. C. S., & Rodrigues, R. T. S. (2017) Intake, digestibility, growth performance, and enteric methane emission of Brazilian semiarid non-descript breed goats fed diets with different forage to concentrate rations. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 50(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-017-1427-0

Brasil. (2012). Plano Setorial de Mitigação e de Adaptação às Mudanças Climáticas para a Consolidação de uma Economia de Baixa Emissão de Carbono na Agricultura: plano ABC (Agricultura de Baixa Emissão de Carbono). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA)/ACS: Brasília, Brasil, 173 p.

Cavalcante, A. R. C., Fernandes, F. E. P, Tonucci, R. G., & Silva, N. L. (2013). Tecnologias para o uso pastoril sustentável da Caatinga. In D. A. Furtado, J. G. V. Baracuhy, & P. R. M. Francisco (Eds.), Difusão de Tecnologias Apropriadas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Semiárido Brasileiro. (cap. VI, pp. 95-112). EPGRAF: Campina Grande, PB, Brazil.

Chi, S., Yao, L., Zhao, G., Lu, W., & Zhao, M. (2024). The performance of low carbon agricultural technologies on farmers’ welfare: A meta-regression analysis of Asian cases. Ecological Economics, 224, 108318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108318

Ciancio, P., Barreto, R., Gemunder, L., Leitão, P., & Braga, J. (2024). PRS Caatinga [livro eletrônico]: uma trajetória de inovação no semiárido brasileiro. Trad. David Hathaway. 1.ed. Ed. dos Autores: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. ISBN 978-65-00-92073-4. https://prscaatinga.org.br/IMG/pdf/livro-prsc_d9631.pdf

Eugène, M., Klumpp, K., & Sauvant, D. (2021). Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants. Grass Forage Science, 76 (2), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12540

Feltran-Barbieri R., & Féres J. G. (2021) Degraded pastures in Brazil: improving livestock production and forest restoration. Royal Society Open Science, 8, 201854. https://doi.org/.1098/rsos.201854

Fernández-Ortega, J., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., & Cantero-Martínez, C. (2023). The use of double-cropping in combination with no-tillage and optimized nitrogen fertilization reduces soil N2O emissions under irrigation. Science of the Total Environment, 857, 159458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159458

Florida Rofner, N., Paredes Arce, M., Paredes Salazar, R. M., Navarro Vasquez, L., & Rengifo Rojas, A. (2022). An organic management alternative that improves soil quality in cocoa plantations under agroforestry systems. Scientia Agropecuaria, 13(4), 335-342. https://doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2022.030

Fouts, J. Q., Honan, M. C, Roque, B. M, Tricarico, J. M., & Kebreab, E. (2022). Enteric methane mitigation interventions. Translational Animal Science, 6(2), txac041. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txac041

Gontijo Neto, M. M., Borghi, E., Alvarenga, R. C., & Viana, M. C. M. (2018). Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta (ILPF). In M. M. Nobre, & I. R. Oliveira (Eds.), Agricultura de baixo carbono: tecnologias e estratégias de implantação (cap. 5, pp. 139-178). Embrapa: Brasília, DF, Brazil.

Hui, M., Yu-rong, Q., & Yong, F. (2023). Risk preferences and the low-carbon agricultural technology adoption: Evidence from rice production in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22(8), 2577–2590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2023.07.002

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística), (INSA) Instituto Nacional do Semiárido. (2000). Mapa do Recorte do Semiárido Brasileiro e do Bioma Caatinga. DATUM: SIRGAS. Escala numérica 1:9.000.000. Governo do Brasil, Brazil.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5), IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland.

Iwata, B. D. F., Brandão, M. L. S. M., Braz, R. D. S., Leite, L. F. C., & Costa, M. C. G. (2021). Total and particulate contents and vertical stratification of organic carbon in agroforestry system in Caatinga. Revista Caatinga, 34, 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252021v34n220rc

Lima, M. L. F., Souza, S. M. F., Sá, I. V., & Santana, O. A. (2023). Deep learning with aerial surveys for extensive livestock hotspot recognition in the Brazilian Semi-arid Region. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 47, e010922. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202347010922

Malhi, G. S., Kaur, M., & Kaushik, P. (2021). Impact of climate change on agriculture and its mitigation strategies: a review. Sustainability, 13(1318). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031318

Menezes, S. S. M., & Silvas, J. N. G. (2024). Exploring socio-biodiversity alternatives in Sergipe’s Sertão - Brazil: the leading role of women, family farmers, and traditional groups in Caatinga conservation. Sustainability in Debate, 15(2), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v15n2.2024.54239

Miccolis, A., Peneireiros, F. M., Vieira, D. L. M., Marques, H. R., & Hoffmann, M. R. M. (2019). Restoration through agroforestry: options for reconciling livelihoods with conservation in the Cerrado and Caatinga Biomes in Brazil. Experimental Agriculture, 55(S1), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479717000138

Milhorance, C., Le Coq, J., Sabourin, E., Andrieu, N., Mesquita, P., Cavalcantes, L., & Nogueira, D. (2022). A policy mix approach for assessing rural household resilience to climate shocks: Insights from Northeast Brazil, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 20(4), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1968683

Nasuti, S., Eiró, F., & Lindoso, D. (2013). Agricultural Challenges in the Brazilian Semiarid Region. Sustentabilidade em Debate, 4(2), 276-298. https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v4n2.2013.10049

Newton, P., Gomez, A. E. A., Jung, S., Kelly, T., Mendes, T.A., Rasmussen, L. V., Reis, J. C., Rodrigues, R. A. R., Tipper, R., Horst, D., & Watkins, C. (2016). Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in Brazil: The Rural Sustentável project. World Development Perspectives, 4, 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.011

Pinheiro, F. M., & Nair, P. K. R. (2018). Silvopasture in the Caatinga biome of Brazil: A review of its ecology, management, and development opportunities. Forest Systems, 27(1), eR01S. https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2018271-12267

Rangel, J. H. A., Moraes, S. A., Tonucci, R. G., Amaral, A. J., Zonta, J. H., Souza, S. F., Santos, R. D., Muniz, E. N., & Piovezan, U. (2020). Sistemas de integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta: uma análise temporal de sua utilização no Semiárido brasileiro. Revista Científica de Produção Animal, 22(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.5935/2176-4158/rcpa.v22n2p81-89

Rathmann, R., Araujo, R. V., Cruz, M. R., & Mendonça, A. M. (2017). Trajetórias de mitigação e instrumentos de políticas públicas para alcance das metas brasileiras no acordo de Paris. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (MCTIC)/ ONU, Brasília, DF, Brazil. 64 p.

Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. RWS Pub.: Pittsburgh, USA. 343p.

Sahani, N. (2021). Application of hybrid SWOT-AHP-FuzzyAHP model for formulation and prioritization of ecotourism strategies in Western Himalaya, India. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 9(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.08.001

Schäler, J., Addo, S., Thaller, G., & Hinrichs, D. (2019). Exploration of conservation and development strategies with a limited stakeholder approach for local cattle breeds. Animal, 13(12), 2922–2931. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119001447

Shajedul, I. (2021). Evaluation of low-carbon sustainable technologies in agriculture sector through grey ordinal priority approach. Science Insight - International Journal of Grey Systems, 1 (1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.52812/ijgs.3

Signor, D., Medeiros, T. A. F., Moraes, S. A., Corrêa, L. C., Tomazi, M., Moura, M. S. B., & Deon, M. (2022). Soil greenhouse gases emissions in a goat production system in the Brazilian semiarid region. Special Supplement: Climate Change in Agriculture, Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical Goiânia, 52, e72371. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632022v5272371

Silva, M. V., Pandorfi, H., Lopes, P. M. O., Silva, J. L. B., Almeida, G. L. P., Silva, D. A. O., Santos, A., Rodrigues, J. A. M., Batista, P. H. D., & Jardim, A. M. R. F. (2020). Pilot monitoring of Caatinga spatial-temporal dynamics through the action of agriculture and livestock in the Brazilian semiarid. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 19, e100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100353

Socolowski, F., Vieira, D. C. M., Souza, B. R., Melo, F. P. L, & Rodrigues, R. G. (2021). Restoration in Caatinga: a proposal for revegetation methods for the most exclusive and least known ecosystem in Brazil. Multequina, 30 (2), 247-263.

Su, M., Jiang, R., & Li, R. (2017). Investigating Low-Carbon Agriculture: Case Study of China’s Henan Province. Sustainability, 9, 2295. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122295

Suela, A. G. L., Suela, G. L., & Carlos, S. M. (2023). Fatores que influenciam a recuperação de pastagens degradadas pelos agricultores da Bacia hidrográfica do Rio das Contas. Revista de Economia e Agronegócio, 21(1), 1679-1614.

Tabarelli, M., Leal, I. R., Scarano, F. R., & Silva, J. M. C. (2017). The Future of the Caatinga. In J. M. C. I. Silva, R. Leal, & M. Tabarelli (Eds.), Caatinga: The Largest Tropical Dry Forest Region in South America (pp. 461–474). Springer International Publishing.

Tolmasquim, M. T., Senra, P. M. A., Gouvêa, A. R., Pereira Jr., A. O., Alves, A. C., & Moszkowicz, M. (2020). Strategies of electricity distributors in the context of distributed energy resources diffusion. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84, 106429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106429

Torres, M. G., Soriano, R., Peralta, J. J., Alejos, J. I., Sánchez, P., Arias, L., Campos, R. G., & Almaraz, I. (2020). Challenges of livestock: climate change, animal welfare and agroforestry. Large Animal Review, 26(1), 39-45.

Vinholis, M. M. B., Souza Filho, H. M., Shimata, I., Oliveira, P. P. A., & Pedroso, A. F. (2021). Economic viability of a crop-livestock integration system. Ciência Rural, 51(2), e20190538. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20190538

Xiong, C., Yang, D., Huo, J., & Zhao, Y. (2016). The relationship between agricultural carbon emissions and agricultural economic growth and policy recommendations of a Low-carbon agriculture economy. Polish Journal of Environmental. Studies, 25 (5), 2187-2195. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/63038

Zhou, W., He, J., Liu, S., & Xu, D. (2023). How Does Trust Influence Farmers’ Low-Carbon Agricultural Technology Adoption? Evidence from Rural Southwest, China. Land, 12(2), 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020466