Evaluación de sustentabilidad como herramienta en la carrera de Ingeniería Agronómica

La temprana aplicación de indicadores de sostenibilidad por estudiantes de la carrera de ingeniería agronómica busca ampliar la mirada más allá del enfoque productivo/económico. Se presentan resultados de dos años en la región de Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Los datos se recogieron mediante entrevistas estructuradas realizadas por un grupo de 25 estudiantes a 13 productores. En la evaluación (2009) no se identificaron sistemas con promedios por debajo de 6/10; sin embargo un tercio de los sistemas podrían tener problemas de “insustentabilidad” en "calidad de vida" y "contaminación por efluentes". La comparación 2010-2009 arrojó una disminución generalizada, excepto “calidad de vida”. El uso de un conjunto de indicadores para los mismos productores permitiría aproximar una evaluación multidimensional de la sostenibilidad en más de 150 sistemas; paralelamente queda disponible un instrumento para mostrar una “nueva mirada” a las familias rurales sobre sus actividades.The early application of sustainability indicators with agronomy students seek to expand the vision of future professionals beyond the productive/economic approach. We present the results of two years in the region of Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Data were collected in farms through structured interviews done by 25 students to 13 farmers. In the 2009 evaluation no systems with average values below 6/10 were identified; nevertheless one third of the systems could be having "unsustainability" problems associated with "quality of life" and "effluents pollution". The comparison 2010-2009 showed a widespread decline, except “quality of life”. The use of a set of indicators for same farmers every year could allow a multidimensional evaluation of sustainability in more than 150 systems; at the same moment an instrument to show rural families a "new look" on their activities is created.Eje A4: Ambiente, Naturaleza y AgroecologíaFacultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestale

Evaluación de sustentabilidad como herramienta en la carrera de Ingeniería Agronómica

La temprana aplicación de indicadores de sostenibilidad por estudiantes de la carrera de ingeniería agronómica busca ampliar la mirada más allá del enfoque productivo/económico. Se presentan resultados de dos años en la región de Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Los datos se recogieron mediante entrevistas estructuradas realizadas por un grupo de 25 estudiantes a 13 productores. En la evaluación (2009) no se identificaron sistemas con promedios por debajo de 6/10; sin embargo un tercio de los sistemas podrían tener problemas de “insustentabilidad” en "calidad de vida" y "contaminación por efluentes". La comparación 2010-2009 arrojó una disminución generalizada, excepto “calidad de vida”. El uso de un conjunto de indicadores para los mismos productores permitiría aproximar una evaluación multidimensional de la sostenibilidad en más de 150 sistemas; paralelamente queda disponible un instrumento para mostrar una “nueva mirada” a las familias rurales sobre sus actividades.The early application of sustainability indicators with agronomy students seek to expand the vision of future professionals beyond the productive/economic approach. We present the results of two years in the region of Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Data were collected in farms through structured interviews done by 25 students to 13 farmers. In the 2009 evaluation no systems with average values below 6/10 were identified; nevertheless one third of the systems could be having "unsustainability" problems associated with "quality of life" and "effluents pollution". The comparison 2010-2009 showed a widespread decline, except “quality of life”. The use of a set of indicators for same farmers every year could allow a multidimensional evaluation of sustainability in more than 150 systems; at the same moment an instrument to show rural families a "new look" on their activities is created.Eje A4: Ambiente, Naturaleza y AgroecologíaFacultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestale

Global versus local environmental impacts of grazing and confined beef production systems

Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO2 eq kg body weight-1 (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW-1 for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW-1 (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems

Evaluación de sustentabilidad como herramienta en la carrera de Ingeniería Agronómica

La temprana aplicación de indicadores de sostenibilidad por estudiantes de la carrera de ingeniería agronómica busca ampliar la mirada más allá del enfoque productivo/económico. Se presentan resultados de dos años en la región de Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Los datos se recogieron mediante entrevistas estructuradas realizadas por un grupo de 25 estudiantes a 13 productores. En la evaluación (2009) no se identificaron sistemas con promedios por debajo de 6/10; sin embargo un tercio de los sistemas podrían tener problemas de “insustentabilidad” en "calidad de vida" y "contaminación por efluentes". La comparación 2010-2009 arrojó una disminución generalizada, excepto “calidad de vida”. El uso de un conjunto de indicadores para los mismos productores permitiría aproximar una evaluación multidimensional de la sostenibilidad en más de 150 sistemas; paralelamente queda disponible un instrumento para mostrar una “nueva mirada” a las familias rurales sobre sus actividades.The early application of sustainability indicators with agronomy students seek to expand the vision of future professionals beyond the productive/economic approach. We present the results of two years in the region of Nueva Helvecia-Colonia Valdense, Uruguay. Data were collected in farms through structured interviews done by 25 students to 13 farmers. In the 2009 evaluation no systems with average values below 6/10 were identified; nevertheless one third of the systems could be having "unsustainability" problems associated with "quality of life" and "effluents pollution". The comparison 2010-2009 showed a widespread decline, except “quality of life”. The use of a set of indicators for same farmers every year could allow a multidimensional evaluation of sustainability in more than 150 systems; at the same moment an instrument to show rural families a "new look" on their activities is created.Eje A4: Ambiente, Naturaleza y AgroecologíaFacultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestale

Diversity in organic and agroecological farming systems for mitigation of climate change impact, with examples from Latin America

This chapter reviews the impact of climate change on, and the adaptation potential of, ecologically intensive systems such as those known in different parts of the world as organic farming, or agroecology. To fit into the rationale of this book, this chapter focuses on Latin America, and on the array of organic and agroecological farming systems (OAFS) that coexist in the region. The chapter starts by defining the farming systems focused on in the chapter. Then climate change predictions for Latin America are reviewed and their impacts assessed. Next, recent evidence from global meta-analyses on the performance of OAFS is summarized. Information from OAFS from Latin America is included in the reviews but is too scant to warrant a specific section. Instead, two specific OAFS from Latin America are focused on: coffee production systems and natural grassland systems. Their current status, challenges in view of climate change predictions and adaptation options proposed in the literature are reviewed. The chapter ends by discussing the key features and impediments of OAFS and how they can help to build farming systems in the face of global and climate change

Diet characteristics, average daily gain, and time to finish steers of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 1.</b>  Diet characteristics, average daily gain, and time to finish steers of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. (Note: BW: body weight.) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Coefficients and emission factors to calculate GHG emissions of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 4.</b>  Coefficients and emission factors to calculate GHG emissions of two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. (Note: <em>Y</em>_m: conversion methane factor (% of gross energy lost as methane); GE: gross energy intake (MJ d⁻¹); <em>Bo</em>: maximum methane producing capacity for manure produced by livestock category (m³ CH₄ kg of VS/excreted); VS: excreted volatile solids (kg MS animal d⁻¹); MCF: methane conversion factors for manure management system in the climate region; EF₃: emission factor according to the manure management and region; EF₄: emission factor according to manure management system; EF₅: emission factor according to manure management system; EFc: fuel factor emission (gas oil) (2.98 kg CO₂ eq kg fuel⁻¹).) </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Inputs and estimated area to produce the feed consumed by animals in two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay

<p><b>Table 3.</b>  Inputs and estimated area to produce the feed consumed by animals in two background and three finishing beef systems of eastern Uruguay. </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p

Yield and nutritional content of feedstuffs considered

<p><b>Table 2.</b>  Yield and nutritional content of feedstuffs considered. </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Carbon footprint is a key indicator of the contribution of food production to climate change and its importance is increasing worldwide. Although it has been used as a sustainability index for assessing production systems, it does not take into account many other biophysical environmental dimensions more relevant at the local scale, such as soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and pesticide contamination. We estimated carbon footprint, fossil fuel energy use, soil erosion, nutrient imbalance, and risk of pesticide contamination for five real beef background-finishing systems with increasing levels of intensification in Uruguay, which were combinations of grazing rangelands (RL), seeded pastures (SP), and confined in feedlot (FL). Carbon footprint decreased from 16.7 (RL–RL) to 6.9 kg (SP–FL) CO₂ eq kg body weight⁻¹ (BW; 'eq': equivalent). Energy use was zero for RL–RL and increased up to 17.3 MJ kg BW⁻¹ for SP–FL. Soil erosion values varied from 7.7 (RL–RL) to 14.8 kg of soil kg BW⁻¹ (SP–FL). Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient balances showed surpluses for systems with seeded pastures and feedlots while RL–RL was deficient. Pesticide contamination risk was zero for RL–RL, and increased up to 21.2 for SP–FL. For the range of systems studied with increasing use of inputs, trade-offs were observed between global and local environmental problems. These results demonstrate that several indicators are needed to evaluate the sustainability of livestock production systems.</p