1 Typology of family livestock production systems in pampa biome using the MESMIS method

2
3 Tipologia dos sistemas de produção da pecuária familiar no bioma pampa utilizando o método
4 MESMIS
5
6 Carolina da Silveira Nicoloso¹*; Vicente Celestino Pires Silveira², Roblein Cristal Coelho Filho³, Fernando
7 Luiz Ferreira de Quadros4
8
9 Abstract
10 Livestock farming plays a significant role in Rio Grande do Sul state. The current dynamics of grain
11 appreciation that occurred on a global level triggered the advance of agricultural production, especially in
12 soybeans, over the gaucho Pampa biome. These changes determine the sustainability path of production
13 systems; and how sustainable are these production systems? A typology of 90 systems of production of
14 family livestock in the Pampa biome was carried out in function of sustainability using the MESMIS method
15 and cluster analysis. The production systems were grouped into three different groups: SPPF, less
16 sustainable, was the Less sustainable, with a higher percentage of crops in the systems, more soybean crops,
17 lower share of income from livestock production, less native field area. SPPF, more sustainable, presented
18 greater sustainability, with smaller areas of crops in relation to the total area, more native field in the
19 systems, more standardized herd, greater crop diversification and a higher level of formal education and
20 producers' participation. SPPF intermediary presented higher productivity, self-sufficiency equal to other
21 groups and similar results to group 1 and smaller than Group 2 (p <0.05).
22 Keywords: sustainability, small livestock farmers, soybeans, typology.
23
24 Resumo
25 A pecuária desempenha um papel significativo no estado do Rio Grande do Sul. A atual dinâmica de
26 valorização dos grãos, ocorrida em nível global, desencadeou o avanço da produção agrícola, especialmente
27 da soja, sobre o bioma gaúcho do Pampa. Essas mudanças determinam o caminho de sustentabilidade dos
28 sistemas de produção; e quão sustentáveis são esses sistemas de produção? Uma tipologia de 90 sistemas de
29 produção da pecuária familiar no bioma Pampa foi realizada em função da sustentabilidade, utilizando o
30 método MESMIS e análise de agrupamento. Os sistemas de produção foram agrupados em três grupos
31 distintos: SPPF menos sustentável, apresentou maior percentual de lavouras nos sistemas, mais lavouras de
32 soja, menor participação da produção pecuária, menor área de campo nativa. O SPPF mais sustentável, teve
33 menores áreas de lavouras em relação à área total, mais campo nativo nos sistemas, rebanho mais
34 padronizado, maior diversificação de culturas e maior nível de educação formal e participação dos
35 produtores. O intermediário SPPF apresentou maior produtividade, autossuficiência igual aos demais grupos
36 e resultados semelhantes ao grupo 1 e menor que o grupo 2 (p <0,05).
37 Palavras-chave: sustentabilidade, pecuária familiar, soja, tipologia.
38
39 Introduction
40
41 Cattle raising is a traditional activity in Rio Grande do Sul (RS), which, since the formation of the
42 state, has influenced its socio-cultural and economic formation. The system of donation of ‘Sesmarias’ was
43 the basis of the implantation of the farms in RS state, where cattle breeding expanded by large areas rich in
44 natural pastures, making livestock the main economic activity of the state. According to Rodrigues (2006),
45 the farms were one of the most important socioeconomic segments in the history of Rio Grande do Sul,
1 ¹Zoot., Doutora em Extensão Rural pela Universidade Federal de Santa Maria-UFSM, Santa Maria, RS,
2 Brasil. E-mail: carolinanicoloso@hotmail.com
3 ²Méd. Vet.; Prof. PhD. Associado , UFSM, Santa Maria ,RS, Brasil
4 ³Engº.Agroº; Msc; Emater, RS, Brasil.
5 4
Engº.Agroº; Prof. Dr. Associado, UFSM, Santa Maria, RS, Brasil
6
1 2
2
1 based on extensive livestock farming on large estates, with a large number of animals and abundant in
2 natural pastures. The arrival of settlers sent by the Portuguese crown in the eighteenth century resulted in a
3 new organization of work and new configuration in the patrimony of the land, capable of explaining the
4 historical presence of small cattle farmers in Rio Grande do Sul (WAQUILL et al.,2016).
5 Hence the origin of the social category called family livestock in RS, which, since 2011, has been
6 regulated by law, where the condition of family farmers is defined by Decree No. 48,316, August 31, 2011
7 (BRASIL, 2011). The family livestock production uses predominantly family labor, with a minimum income
8 of 70% obtained from activities carried out in the rural establishment of a maximum of 300 hectares, to
9 which they own the possession.
10 The family livestock plays a significant role in RS for its characteristics as a social actor and from
11 the point of view of management systems where its practices favor the conservationist and more extensive
12 production, mainly in the Pampa biome. This biome confers features and peculiarities to the region that
13 directly influence the ability of the area for livestock activity. The grassy vegetation, with open and wide
14 plains áreas of grass fields, some areas with more dense vegetation, with pine forests in the vicinity of the
15 rivers and waterways, and also the presence of plains (CHOMENKO, 2006). It comprises almost all the
16 center-south region of RS state, including Plateau da Campaign, Plateau Sul-Rio-Grandense, Central
17 Depression and Coastal Plain.
18 The Pampa biome, as well as a natural heritage, is also a cultural heritage, and the extensive cattle
19 ranching over the Pampa biome, as the main economic activity, has allowed the conservation of the fields
20 and the development of a unique mestizo culture, of transnational character represented by the figure of the
21 Gaucho (BRASIL, 2014).
22 Despite the provision of the Pampa biome for cattle breeding, the current dynamics of grain
23 valorization that occurs worldwide has triggered the advance of agricultural production, especially soybeans,
24 over the Pampa gaucho. The expansion of soybean growing areas in the Pampa biome, from the year 2000
25 (PIZZATO, 2013), on areas traditionally used for extensive cattle raising and rice production is transforming
26 this region. Pizzato (2013) observed the increase of areas destined to the cultivation of soybean and decrease
27 of areas of livestock and rice cultivation in the Pampas. However, the author points out that the production of
28 beef cattle did not decrease. "This shows that the profile of the livestock industry in Rio Grande do Sul has
29 changed and is producing more in less area" (PIZZATO, 2013. P.57). Silveira et al. (2017) demonstrated the
30 changes in land use in the region, influenced by grain appreciation in the domestic and external markets,
31 where soybean became the largest commercial crop of the Pampa in 2003, increasing by 1,192,115 ha
32 between 2000 and 2015. The maintenance of the bovine herd size on the region is linked to the use of
33 cultivated pastures in the winter for animal production, where in the summer the soybean is cultivated.
34 Although profitability is the greatest call for soybean input in productive systems, the proper
35 management of native field competes in profitability with agriculture. Livestock farming in the Pampa biome
36 plays a historically linked role to the social and cultural development of the region.
37 In this sense, family farming contributes greatly to the conservation of the Pampa biome due to
38 production systems that favor more extensive and conservationist production. Despite this, the low use of
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 3
2
1 technologies by this type of cattle rancher (family farmer) results in low productivity, which is the gateway
2 to soybean expansion in these areas. All these dynamics results in changes in the productive systems, which
3 include the cattle rancher himself, who also suffers from the effects of the changes, changing his way of
4 managing his activity. The family farmer, defined by the typology of Ribeiro (2009), is thus inserted into
5 new types of production systems that are the result of the changes arising from the dynamics of soybean in
6 the Pampa biome, and these changes determine the sustainability path of these production systems. How
7 sustainable are these production systems?
8 There are a number of definitions of sustainability in agriculture, and all emphasize the need to
9 address the ecological, economic and sociological consequences of development choices for the present and
10 future generations (GIBON et al., 1999; BELZLEPKINA et al., 2011)
11 The sustainability of agricultural systems depends on many factors, often interrelated, that differ
12 between systems and change over time. Therefore, the recent literature on the evaluation of agricultural
13 systems sustainability advocates the adoption of integrated, flexible, participatory and multi-scale approaches
14 to address complex issues involving various disciplines and stakeholders (BARBIER; LÓPEZ-RIDAURA,
15 2010).
16 Among the methods developed for the evaluation of sustainability, the Framework for Evaluation of
17 Natural Resource Management Systems Incorporating Sustainability Indicators - MESMIS - follows an
18 holistic approach, which can be applied at different scales, including the scale of the farm and ensures
19 universal applicability for the management of natural resources - Level of attributes. This structure is
20 organized around sustainability attributes (productivity, stability, adaptability, equity and self-sufficiency),
21 although these attributes are related to the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social and environmental)
22 (LÓPEZ-RIDAURA; MASERA; ASTIER, 2002). MESMIS is a bottom-up, participatory and
23 interdisciplinary process (BINDER; FEOLA; STEIBERGER, 2010), in which sustainability is not measured
24 by itself, but is expressed in comparative terms between two or more systems or between different stages of
25 the same system. It has been widely used in sustainability assessments of production systems of small
26 farmers in different countries and agroecological regions (SPEELMAN et al., 2007).
27 The objective of this paper was to evaluate the sustainability of family farmer production systems
28 (SPPF) after the introduction of soybeans, located in areas of Pampa biome, through typologies of production
29 systems.
30
31 Material and Methods
32
33 The MESMIS framework allows the derivation, measurement and monitoring of sustainability
34 indicators as part of a systemic, participatory, interdisciplinary and flexible evaluation process (LÓPEZ-
35 RIDAURA; MASERA; ASTIER, 2002). The structure is based on seven defined sustainability attributes
36 (productivity, stability, reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity and self-sufficiency), although indicators
37 can also be classified into three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social and economic). The systemic
38 attributes defined are:
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 4
2
1 (A) Productivity (ability to provide the required level of goods and services).
2 (B) Stability (ability to maintain a constant level of productivity under normal conditions).
3 C) Reliability (maintaining productivity near equilibrium levels under normal conditions of
4 environmental disturbance).
5 D) Resilience (return to equilibrium or levels of productivity similar to the initial level after serious
6 disturbances).
7 E) Adaptability or flexibility (ability to find new levels of balance or to continue to offer benefits to
8 long-term changes in the environment).
9 (F) Fairness (the ability of the system to distribute intra and intergenerational benefits and costs in a
10 fairly manner).
11 (G) Self-sufficiency (ability of the system to regulate and control interactions with the outside).
12 The attributes of stability, reliability and resilience can be grouped (hereafter referred to as "stability")
13 to express the system's ability to cope with change (LÓPEZ-RIDAURA; MASERA; ASTIER, 2002).
14 Together with adaptability, these attributes help analyze the sustainability of agricultural systems in a
15 dynamic way, that allows consideration of the physical and socio-economic context in which production
16 systems operate.
17 This research was developed with the support of EMATER/RS (Technical Assistance and Rural
18 Extension Company), regional of Santa Maria. The regional is composed of 35 municipalities of which 20
19 ones participated in the study through the collaboration of their municipal livestock technicians (Figure 1).
20 Thus, production systems in 20 municipalities (Cacequi, Cachoeira do Sul, Dilermando de Aguiar,
21 Formigueiro, Jaguari, Jari, Nova Esperança do Sul, Paraiso do Sul Pinhal Grande, Quevedos, Restinga Seca,
22 Santa Maria, Santiago, São Francisco de Assis, São Martinho da Serra, São Pedro do Sul, São Sepé, São
23 Vicente do Sul, Unistalda and Vila Nova do Sul), in a total of 90 production systems.
24 The operational structure of the MESMIS consists of six stages:
25 Stage 1 - definition and description of the system or of the systems to be evaluated.
26 Stage 2 - identification of critical points of the system: positive or negative aspects that provide
27 strength or vulnerability, i.e., socioeconomic factors, techniques or processes that individually or in
28 combination can have a crucial effect on the attributes of the systems described.
29 Stage 3 - Selection of diagnostic criteria and indicators: the purpose of this process is to provide the
30 necessary link between attributes and critical points on one side, and critical points and indicators, on the
31 other. The difference between the diagnostic criteria and the indicators is that the first one describes the
32 attributes of sustainability and the second one describes a specific process within the system.
33 The operationalization of the first three stages of the MESMIS method was developed from October
34 2013 to March 2014 and then, from April to September 2015. Thus, the definition of the object of study
35 (Stage 1) was carried out at a meeting of a group of researchers and extensionists, belonging to the Federal
36 University of Santa Maria (UFSM) and EMATER Santa Maria.
37 In the second stage (Stage 2), a meeting was held with the presence of the group of researchers and the
38 municipal field technicians of EMATER Santa Maria, on October 16th, 2013, when the methodology was
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 5
2
1 presented the weaknesses and strengths of the production systems under study, as well as their opportunities
2 and weaknesses, were carried out through a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
3 Threats), which we can observe In Frame 1.
4 Stage 3 took place in two moments. In March 2014, the group of researchers involved defined the
5 diagnostic criteria and indicators that were previously applied through a questionnaire. Along with the results
6 obtained, it was possible to evaluate the quality and efficiency of the indicators, which were improved
7 between April and September 2015. Together with the 32 indicators elaborated (Table 1), the questionnaires
8 were adapted for the field data collection.
9 Stage 4 - Measurement and monitoring of the indicators selected in the previous step. From May to
10 July 2016, a questionnaire was used to collect data from 90 family livestock production systems that are part
11 of EMATER Santa Maria's business sector. The questionnaire was composed of questions that allow us to
12 respond to the indicators established in the previous stage
13 Stage 5 - Integration of results: reference values were established for each indicator using references
14 in the literature or specific values for the case study under analysis. Optimum reference values vary
15 according to the nature of the indicators. For each attribute of sustainability, the indicators were weighted to
16 reflect the relative importance that they have in order to explain the sustainability of the system. This process
17 often depends on a subjective score (MEUL et al., 2008). The researchers and extensionists participating in
18 the meetings (stages 1, 2 and 3) also ranked the indicators - within each sustainability attribute - in order of
19 importance (the lowest weight was given to the Less important indicator). The indicators used are diversified
20 and expressed in both directions, both qualitative and quantitative. Then, all the indicators had the values
21 transformed on a scale of 0 to 100, corresponding to the worst (0) and the best (100) value. These values of
22 the indicators and their weights were used to calculate the sustainability attributes of the studied production
23 systems (%).
24 Stage 6 - Conclusions and recommendations: the evaluation is expressed in comparative terms among
25 groups of family ranchers, performed through the typology of the production systems studied, based on the
26 sustainability attributes of the MESMIS method. The typology of agricultural systems is a widely used
27 method for studies of the diversity of animal production systems (GARCIA-MARTINEZ; OLAIZOLA A.
28 M.; BERNUES et al, 2009). The multivariate analysis allows groups of production systems to be identified
29 and, with the hierarchical grouping analysis of the five sustainability attributes, we classified the systems of
30 production of family farmers (cattle breeders from the same family) in the Pampa biome.
31 The grouping analysis allows to classify a large group of subjects with maximum internal
32 homogeneity, maximizing external heterogeneity (HAIR et al., 2006).Previously, the variables were
33 standardized. The Euclidean squared distance and the Ward method were used as distance measure and
34 clustering algorithm, respectively (HAIR et al., 2006). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to study the
35 differences between the sustainability groups. The analyzes were performed using SPSS (22.0).
36
37 Result and Discussion
38
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 6
2
1 Characterization of production systems
2
3 The 90 production systems studied are part of EMATER-RS regional area of Santa Maria, located in
4 the Pampa biome in an area with an average annual precipitation of 1776 mm, distributed in 96 days.year -1
5 average annual temperature of 20.1ºC, presenting negative temperatures in the winter and maximum
6 temperatures that exceed 40ºC in the summer.
7 Table 2 shows data on the production systems that characterize them, before analyzing their
8 sustainability. These results correspond to the initial stage of the methodology (definition and description of
9 the systems) and allow us a general view of the systems studied before the sustainability analysis.
10 The average age of the holder of rural properties was 53 years, with the oldest producer presenting
11 79 years and the youngest, 22 years old. The UAA observed was 64.86 hectares. The production systems
12 presented from 5 hectares of UAA to 224 hectares in the largest system in relation to UAA. On average,
13 production systems had 59.57 AU at the time of data collection, with a minimum of 4 AU and maximum of
14 271.33 AU. So, we observed a mean AU/UAA ratio of 0.92 AU per UAA hectares, with a minimum of 0.80
15 and a maximum of 1.21 AU/UAA.
16 To refer to the reproductive performance of the herd we used the relation "number of calves/females
17 of reproductive age". The number of calves per female of reproductive age observed was 0.45; being the
18 maximum of 5 and the minimum of 0.
19 The data collected do not allow the calculation of the enjoyment. To get closer to this index, we calculate the
20 "surplus capacity" of the system. Through the sales revenue of animals and the amount paid per kilogram of
21 live animal, we calculate the AU marketed. The number of AU marketed was divided by the number of
22 animals existing at the time of data collection, generating the capacity to generate surpluses. The maximum
23 observed was 60.75 and the minimum 0. The observed mean value was 8.80.
24 Production costs are expressed through two indicators: costs per hectare of UAA and costs per animal
25 unit. For the former, the average cost observed was R$ 883.62 per hectare of useful agricultural land. This
26 relation showed a large amplitude between minimum and maximum values observed, being R$ 30.81 and R$
27 4,716.67, respectively. As for the costs per animal unit, we observed an average value of R$ 916.46,
28 minimum of R$ 86.10 and maximum of R$ 4,707.69.
29 Regarding to labor, the UAA/HWU and AU/HWU indicators show that, on average, a man works
30 alone 30.40 hectares of land and 28.92 livestock units. The maximum and minimum values for these
31 indicators were 2 and 1.76 and maximum values of 108.0 and 135.67, respectively.
32 The indicator Net revenue/family UTH demonstrates the remuneration of the labor that these systems
33 present. The average value observed was R$ 23,800.11 per man per year. The minimum amount, R$ -
34 11,970.00, shows that, instead of remunerating the workforce, there are systems that are generating debt. The
35 maximum value observed was R$ 181,660.00.
36
37 Typology of sustainability of production systems
38
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 7
2
1 The cluster analysis based on the five MESMIS attributes identified three groups of production systems
2 (Figure 2, Table 3)
3 Less sustainable SPPF presented lower Productivity among the three groups (p <0.05). For Stability,
4 Adaptability and Equity, the observed values are equal to the intermediate SPPF and inferior to the more
5 sustainable SPPF (p <0.05).
6 In the most sustainable SPPF, it is noticed greater Stability, Adaptability and Equity (p <0.05).
7 Productivity was higher than the Less sustainable SPPF and equal to intermediate SPPF (p <0.05).
8 On the other hand, the intermediate SPPF presented higher Productivity than the Less sustainable
9 SPPF (p <0.05), being statically the same as the most sustainable SPPF. For Stability, Adaptability and
10 Equity the values did not differ from the Less sustainable SPPF and were lower than the most sustainable
11 SPPF (p <0.05). Values for self-sufficiency did not differ between groups.
12 Figure 3 provides an integrated view of the results for the attributes of sustainability.
13 The intermediate SPPF showed high productivity, surpassing the Less sustainable SPPF in
14 Productivity where it was equal to the most sustainable SPPF. For the remaining attributes, it was the same
15 as the Less sustainable SPPF in Stability, Adaptability and Equity.
16 In order to better describe and characterize the groups obtained, we used the analysis of the indicators
17 that make up each attribute of sustainability. Figure 4 shows the results obtained for the indicators of the
18 Productivity attribute.
19 The group with the worst result for sustainability was the Less sustainable SPPF which presented
20 lower Productivity. The score of this group for the indicator "Crops in the system" was the lowest among the
21 three groups, as well as for the indicators "Presence of different crops", "Crop incorporation time",
22 "Invasives forages and soil cover" and "Pasture height ". Thus, in this group, the production systems present
23 a higher percentage of crops and more recent incorporation into the system, with a higher presence of
24 soybean cultivation among the three groups.
25 The highest percentage of crops in the system and the most recent incorporation seems to reflect the
26 results for indicators “invasives forages and soil cover" and "Pasture height ". The lowest score for these
27 indicators demonstrates that, in this group, it is observed uncovered soil in greater proportion and greater
28 presence of invasive, as well as a lower grass height.
29 Although the Less sustainable SPPF has a higher percentage of crops, especially soybeans, in systems,
30 it presented "liquid income/ha of UAA, lower than the intermediate SPPF. Regarding the participation of
31 other revenues (“Net income from another activity”), the Less sustainable SPPF obtained an equal result to
32 the intermediate SPPF and inferior than the most sustainable SPPF, that is, this group presents higher inflows
33 of origin of activities outside the system of livestock production.
34 The most sustainable SPPF, with productivity as statistically as the intermediate SPPF, has a better
35 result for the indicator "Crops in the system", that is, it has a smaller area of crops than the other groups.
36 However, in this group, the indicator "Presence of different crops" shows us a greater presence of the
37 soybean crop than the intermediate SPPF and smaller than Group 1. The indicators "Crop incorporation
38 time", "Invasives forages and soil cover"" and "Pasture height" also follow the logic observed in the Less
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 8
2
1 sustainable SPPF. The most sustainable SPPF obtained lower "Net Revenue/UAA and lower share of
2 revenues from outside the production system.
3 The intermediate SPPF, high productivity, presented worse result for "Crops in the systems" than the
4 most sustainable SPPF, because it presents a greater area of cultivation. However, this larger area of
5 cultivation has less presence of soybean cultivation and these areas of cultivation are already established,
6 with a longer incorporation time in the system. The other indicators, except "Net income from another
7 activity", were higher than the other groups.
8 The results for the Stability indicators are shown in Figure 5.
9 The results for the indicators that compose the Stability attribute, between the Less sustainable SPPF
10 and intermediate SPPF, did not present significant differences, these groups were inferior to the most
11 sustainable SPPF, except for "Housing and transport" in which the Less sustainable SPPF showed better
12 result.
13 The most sustainable SPPF presented greater possibilities of succession both by the existence of
14 heirs and by the number of hectares of land/heir, which enables the continuation of the activity by the
15 successor. The best result for the indicator "Income from animal production" shows that the most sustainable
16 SPPF is more based on the cattle activity than the other groups. The most sustainable SPPF also presented a
17 higher percentage of native vegetation/total area, which, in terms of presence of legal reserve, contributes to
18 the stability of the production systems.
19 Through Figure 6, we observe the indicators of the Adaptability attribute. In general, it is necessary to
20 emphasize the low performance of the three groups in relation to this attribute. The scores of the Less
21 sustainable SPPF and intermediate SPPF groups were 11.01 and 7.3%, respectively. Adaptability refers to
22 the ability of an agroecosystem to regain stability after adverse situations.
23 The most sustainable SPPF group outperformed all other groups (which did not differ) in all
24 indicators. It presented a higher level of formal education of the holder of the rural property, that is, a higher
25 level of schooling within this group. Despite the low score achieved, the most sustainable SPPF also
26 presented a higher value than the others for "No. of training courses in the last 3 years".
27 The indicators of the Equity attribute (Figure 7) aim to demonstrate the benefits resulting from the use
28 of natural resources, considering the costs of each management practice.
29 For Equity, the largest differences between groups are observed in the indicators "herd standardization
30 scale", "number of different crops", "leisure days/year", "No. of conservation practices", "Total”, “costs of
31 agrochemicals/UAA”, and "resistance to internal and external parasites", in which the most sustainable SPPF
32 proved to be superior to the others. The "Native field improved in the system" was similar for all three
33 groups.
34 Unlike the most sustainable SPPF, the Less sustainable SPPF is the one that presents the lowest
35 native field/total area ratio.
36 Due to the higher percentage of crops (in the Productivity attribute), the Less sustainable SPPF
37 presented higher cost of agrochemicals per hectare of UAA and more pastures cultivated in the system,
38 resulting in a lower score for these indicators. The number of soil conservation practices presented a higher
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 9
2
1 score for the most sustainable SPPF, followed by the Less sustainable SPPF and later the intermediate SPPF,
2 as well as the indicator "Resistance to external and internal parasites. For the other indicators, the groups
3 showed little difference among them
4 In Figure 8, we observe the indicators that are part of the attribute self-fficiency.
5 The indicators show that, in relation to land ownership, the most sustainable SPPF is the group with
6 the lowest percentage of own land, with the intermediate SPPF having the best result for this indicator. The
7 indicator “Total surface as owner” demonstrates the relationship between having his own land and using land
8 under the leasing system, in which the system operates.
9 Regarding the level of indebtedness, the most sustainable SPPF obtained a better result, the Less
10 sustainable SPPF presented higher indebtedness. The level of indebtedness of the production system is
11 represented by the indicator “Total annual debt/net income”, that is, it relates the debts to be paid in the year
12 with the gross income. The less sustainable SPPF presented worse score for “% of the ration in
13 supplementation”, that is, this group uses more supplementation than the other groups. As for the number of
14 self-consumed products and "Family labor force/total labor force", the most sustainable SPPF was slightly
15 higher than the other groups. Along with this association of results of indicators, no significant difference
16 was observed for the attribute Self-sufficiency between the groups.
17 The indicator "Pasture height " has, as its diagnostic criteria, the relation between capacity and
18 animal load in the native field. In this study, the use of forage and grassland structure was also affected by
19 grass height (PONTES; CARVALHO; NABINGER, 2003, CAUDURO et al., 2007). Greater grazing
20 pressure, consequent lower pasture height, contributes to the occurrence of discovered soils and a greater
21 presence of invasives. The conversion and incorporation of new areas of agricultural crops, mainly soybean,
22 causes a mismatch in the animal load until then supported by the system, increasing the grazing pressure on
23 the native field area, resulting in lower pasture height and greater presence of invasives.
24 It should be noted that the indicator "Number of machines and implements" does not clearly express
25 the degree of technification that was intended to be demonstrated. This indicator does not consider the
26 capacity of the machines and implements, in this way, a production system with a machine of great capacity,
27 capable of attending to the necessity of this system, of larger dimension of UAA is impaired in relation to a
28 system of little UAA that presents two or more equipment of limited capacity
29 Analyzing together with the Productivity indicator, we find that this group has a lower participation of
30 agriculture (better result for "Crops in the system"), greater dependence on external income for agricultural
31 activity, and lower "liquid income /UAA. Severo & Miguel (2006, p.20) observed that "in general,
32 exclusively beef cattle production systems presented very low or even negative agroeconomic and efficiency
33 results, with a high dependence on non-agricultural incomes" ...].
34 Ribeiro (2009) found in his study that 75% of family ranchers and their families never participated in
35 any type of formal professional qualification. This result coincides with the low sustainability percentage for
36 the Adaptability attribute according to the indicators that compose it.
37 For this study, the adaptability of the systems studied is directly linked to the formal training and
38 participation of the family ranchers. It is understood that a higher level of formal education, training for
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 10
2
1 activity and participation in different environments related to the activity sector, prepare the family farmer
2 for decision making in the face of the challenges and crises that arise for the activity, expanding the
3 possibility and finding solutions more suitable for each reality and thus resulting in an easier adaptation of
4 the system to new conditions. The absence of formal education does not annul personal capacity, however,
5 according to Ribeiro (2009), it may hinder the use of this potential.
6 The low participation of cattle ranchers in collective spaces and unions demonstrates the
7 individualistic characteristic of the rural producer, highlighted by several authors (RIBEIRO, 2009, PORTO
8 et.al., 2010, NORONHA; HESPANHOL, 2006; FERREIRA et al., 2009)
9 The management and conservation of the native field was strongly emphasized, being demonstrated
10 directly or indirectly in several indicators. The most sustainable SPPF, the most sustainable one, presented a
11 higher percentage of native field over the total area of the production system. This indicator favors a greater
12 presence of native field in the production systems due to the specificity of its presence for the Pampa biome.
13 "It is a fantastic genetic heritage and rarely found in other pastoral biomes on the planet. But more than a
14 genetic heritage, this diversity is important because it characterizes a diversified diet, which confers
15 particular characteristics to the animal product obtained there "(NABINGER, 2006, p.2).
16 The attribute Self-sufficiency, after the attribute Adaptability, presented the worst result among the
17 attributes of sustainability proposed by MESMIS. Although family livestock production systems are less
18 dependent on external inputs to the production system because of their intrinsic characteristics, they do not
19 guarantee, according to the proposed analysis, a higher level of self-sufficiency.
20 Although the basis of the systems studied is animal production that takes place more extensively than
21 in other production systems, and thus more dependent on natural resources, there are critical points for these
22 systems that are demonstrated by the indicators.
23 Land ownership is an important point, as land not owned, in lease, represents an uncertainty in the
24 future of the system.
25 High levels of indebtedness, even if the debt is made for investment purposes, are worrisome, since
26 they compromise the future of the activity insofar as they increase the risks of the activity
27 The Less sustainable SPPF group is the group with the largest areas of soybean cultivation in the
28 system, which is related to higher indebtedness due to the need for investments and the use of external inputs
29 to be greater than in systems that present a greater participation of the animal production than the cultivation
30 of Soy.
31 Although this group presents larger areas of crops in the system, this result, when analyzed with the
32 indicator of pastures grown in the system, shows that the soybean growing areas in the summer are not used
33 by the system in the winter with pastures cultivated for animal production, which makes it necessary to seek
34 alternative of nutritional management such as supplementation.
35 In the context of uncertainties in which they are inserted, attributes such as Stability, Adaptability and
36 Self-sufficiency gain relevance for production systems that present good levels of productivity (RIPOLL-
37 BOSCH; JOY; BERNUÉS 2012). Although the complexity inherent to the study of the evolution of
38 agricultural production systems and the advent of soybean cultivation in the Pampa biome, the MESMIS
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 11
2
1 method associated to multivariate analysis (hierarchical grouping) proved to be efficient for the typology of
2 the production system of family cattle breeding.
3 These results indicate that sustainability for the production systems studied, due to the specificities of
4 the environment and dynamics to which they are inserted, is in the balance between agriculture and
5 livestock, systems and management practices, etc. The soybean expansion in the SPPF reflects the need for
6 alternatives to increase income, which is a key point of these systems. Rippol-Bosch et al. (2013), studying
7 the sustainability of Mediterranean systems of sheep production, with different levels of intensification,
8 emphasize the importance of income and the remuneration of labor as a way to guarantee the permanence of
9 producers in the activity. Agriculture, to a certain extent, makes possible the existence of livestock.
10 However, the excessive expansion of one activity over the other in the Pampa biome results in a decrease in
11 sustainability, both on environmental, social and economic aspects.
12 "Despite current concerns about the global environmental impacts of livestock production, local
13 stakeholders prioritize economic, social development and few local environmental sustainability factors"
14 (RIPOLL-BOSCH; JOY; BERNUÉS, 2012, p.57). Diversification is a relevant strategy, however,
15 diversification of production and resource use, or sources of income are limited in sheep and cattle breeding
16 systems (BERNUÉS et al., 2011). Appropriate management alternatives to the Pampa biome can present
17 results that allow livestock to compete in profitability with soybean cultivation, even more if they are
18 associated with public policies for the conservation of this biome, avoiding the continuation of the
19 degradation and suppression of native fields, with all the loss of biodiversity that this entails.
20
21 Conclusions
22
23 The application of the MESMIS method associated to the typology through a cluster analysis allowed
24 the identification of three types of production systems of family livestock in the central region of RS state, in
25 the Pampa biome.
26 The Less sustainable SPPF has the most relevant characteristics: larger areas of cultivation in the
27 production systems that integrate it, among these crops, greater presence of soybean cultivation, lower
28 income from animal production, smaller legal reserve área and smaller field area in the systems. In addition,
29 they present higher costs with fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Rural property owners enjoy fewer leisure days a
30 year when compared to other groups.
31 The most sustainable SPPF showed smaller areas of crops in production systems, less soybean
32 participation among crops, although it is present, higher income from animal production, greater native field
33 area, more standardized herd, higher level of formal education and participation of producers and more
34 crops, resulting in more diversified systems.
35 The intermediate SPPF, with intermediate results in relation to the other two groups regarding
36 sustainability, presented statistically equal productivity to the most sustainable SPPF and superior to the Less
37 sustainable SPPF (p <0.05). Although this group presented smaller areas of cultivation than the most
38 sustainable SPPF, more sustainable, the presence of soybean cultivation was higher in this group, as well as a
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 12
2
1 higher net revenue per hectare of UAA. When the other attributes, the intermediate SPPF did not differ from
2 the Less sustainable SPPF, even for the attribute Self-sufficiency, where all groups were equal.
3
4 References
5 BARBIER, J. M.; LÓPEZ-RIDAURA, S. Evaluation de la durabilité des systèmes de production agricoles:
6 limites des démarches normatives et voies d’amélioration. In: ISDA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUN,
7 2010. Montpellier, France. Anais… Montpellier, p 3-9, 2010.
8
9 BELZLEPKINA, I. et al. Integrated assessment of sustainability of agricultural systems and land use:
10 methods, tools and applications. Agricultural Systems. Amnsterdam, n . 104, pp. 105–109, 2011.
11
12 BERNUÉS, A.; RUIZ, R.; OLAIZOLA, A. CASASUS, I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming
13 systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science. Amnsterdam,
14 n. 139, pp. 44-57, 2011.
15
16 BINDER, C.R.; FEOLA, G.; STEINBERGER, J. K. Considering the normative, systemic and procedural
17 dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment
18 Review. Amnsterdam, n. 30, pp. 71-81, 2010.
19
20 BRASIL. Pampa: conhecimentos e descobertas. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasília, Distrito Federal,
21 2014. Disponível em: <http://www.mma.gov.br/biomas/pampa/>. Acesso em: 25 mar.2017.
22
23 CAUDURO, G. F. Fluxo de biomassa aérea em azevém anual manejado sob duas intensidades e dois
24 métodos de pastejo. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. Viçosa, v. 36, n.2, pp.282-290, 2007.
25
26 CHOMENKO, L. Implantação de monoculturas: o desenvolvimento na metade sul do Rio Grande do Sul,
27 Brasil. Ecoagencia, Porto Alegre, 2006. Disponível em: <http://www.ecoagencia.com.br/?open=listartigos>.
28 Acesso em: 15 mai.2017.
29
30 FERREIRA, P. A. et al. Estado e agricultores familiares: uma análise interpretativa sobre o desenvolvimento
31 rural no Sul de Minas Gerais. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural. Rio de Janeiro, v. 47, n.3, pp.769-
32 792, 2009.
33
34 GARCIA-MARTINEZ, A.; OLAIZOLA A. M.; BERNUES A. Trajectories of evolution and drivers of
35 change in European mountain cattle farming systems. Animal. Cambidge, n. 3, pp. 152-165, 2009.
36
37 GIBON, A. et al. Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing
38 towards sustainability in livestock farming. Livestock Production Science. Amnsterdam, n. 61, pp. 121-
39 137, 1999.
40
41 HAIR, J.F. et al. Multivariate data analysis. 6. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Pearson Prentice Hall.
42 2006.
43
44 LÓPEZ-RIDAURA, S.; MASERA, O.; ASTIER, M. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-
45 environmental systems: the MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators. Amnstedam, n. 2, pp. 135-148,
46 2002.
47
48 MEUL, M. et al. A monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agronomy for Sustainable
49 Development. Paris, n. 28, pp. 321-332, 2008.
50
51 NABINGER C. Manejo e produtividade das pastagens nativas do subtrópico brasileiro. In: I SIMPÓSIO DE
52 FORRAGEIRA E PRODUÇÃO ANIMAL.2006. Porto Alegre. Anais... UFRGS, Porto Alegre, pp. 25-76,
53 2006.
54

3 [Digite texto]
4
 1 13
2
1 NORONHA, E.O.; HESPANHOL, R.A.M. Perspectiva da produção agrícola familiar em relação ao
2 associativismo rural: um estudo de caso no Município de Presidente Prudente (SP). In: II ENCONTRO DE
3 GUPOS DE PESQUISA DO INSTITUTO DE GEOGRAFIA –UFU. 2006. Uberaba. Anais...UFU, Uberaba,
4 pp 32-40, 2006.
5
6 PIZZATO, Fernanda. Pampa gaúcho: causas e consequências do expressivo aumento das áreas de soja.
7 2013. Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2013.
8
9 PONTES, L.S.; CARVALHO, P.C.F.; NABINGER, C.; SOARES, A.B.; Fluxo de biomassa em pastagem de
10 azevém anual (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) manejada em diferentes alturas. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia.
11 Viçosa, v.32, n.4, pp. 814-820, 2003.
12
13 PORTO, R. G.; BEZERRA, A.J.A.; PORTO, V.H.F.; CALDAS, N.V. Pecuária familiar: a emergência de
14 uma categoria social no Sul do Brasil. Revista Economia e Sociologia Rural. Rio de Janeiro, v. 48, n. 2,
15 2010.
16
17 RIBEIRO, Claudio Marques. Estudo do modo de vida dos pecuaristas familiares da Região da
18 Campanha do Rio Grande do Sul. 2009. Tese de doutorado. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
19 Porto Alegre, 2009.
20
21 RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Decreto nº 48.316, de 31 de agosto de 2011. Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio
22 Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, n. 170, 1º set. 4 p, 2011.
23
24 RIPOLL-BOSCH, R.; DÍEZ-UNQUERA, B.; RUIZ, R.; VILLALBA, D.; MOLINA, E.; JOY, M.;
25 OLAIZOLA, A.; BERNUÉS, A. An integrated sustainability assessment of mediterranean sheep farms with
26 differente of intensification. Agricultural systems. Amsterdam, v. 105, p. 46-56, 2012.
27
28 RIPOLL-BOSCH, R.; JOY, M.; BERNUÉS, A. Role of self-sufficiency, productivity and diversification on
29 the economic sustainability of farming systems with autochthonous sheep breeds in less favoured areas in
30 Southern Europe. Animal. Amsterdam, v. 7, n. 3, pp. 1-9, 2013.
31
32 RODRIGUES, Aline de Lima. O latifúndio no Rio Grande do Sul, velhas formas na funcionalidade de
33 novos atores econômicos na Microrregião Geográfica da Campanha Central. 2006. Dissertação de
34 Mestrado, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Marias, 2006.
35
36 SEVERO, C.M.; MIGUEL, L.A. A sustentabilidade dos sistemas de produção de bovinocultura de corte do
37 estado do Rio Grande do Sul. REDES-Revista de Desenvolvimento Regional. Santa Cruz do Sul, v. 11, n.
38 3, pp. 213,234, 2006.
39
40 SILVEIRA, V.C.P.; GONZÁLEZ, J.A.; FONSECA, E.L.; Land use changes after the period commodities
41 rising price in the Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Ciência Rural. Santa Maria, v.47, n.4, 2017.
42
43 SPEELMAN, E.N.; LOPEZ-RIDAURA, S.; COLOMER, N.A.; ASTIER,M.; MESERA,O.R.Ten years of
44 Sustainability Evaluation using the MESMIS framework: Lessons learned from its application in 28 Latin
45 American case studies. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. Londres,
46 n. 14, pp. 345-361, 2007.
47
48 WAQUILL, P.D.; MATTE, A.; NESKE, M.Z. Pecuária familiar no Rio Grande do Sul: a ressignificação de
49 uma categoria social. In: WAQUILL, P.D.; MATTE, A.; NESKE, M.Z.; BORBA, M, F, S. (Orgs.).
50 Pecuária familiar no Rio Grande do Sul: história, diversidade social e dinâmica de desenvolvimento.
51 Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2016.
52
53
54
55
56

3 [Digite texto]
4
1 14
2
1
2 Figure 1. Map of RS state with the twenty municipalities where the production systems studied
3 are located.

4
5 Fonts: Speelman et al. (2007).
6

7 Figure 2. Dendogram with analysis of the grouping of the production systems of the family
8 livestock in the Pampa biome in 2016.

9
10
11 Figure 3. Mean scores obtained from the groups for sustainability attributes of the family
12 livestock production systems in the Pampa biome in 2016.

Productivity
100
80
60
Self-sufficiency 40 Stability
20
0

Equity Adaptability

Less sustainable SPPF Most sustainable SPPF Intermediate SPPF

14
15
3 [Digite texto]
4
1 15
2
1 Figure 4. Mean scores obtained from the groups for the indicators of the attribute Productivity
2 of the systems of production of family livestock in the Pampa biome in 2016.

Productivity
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

Less sustainable SPPF Most sustainable SPPF Intermediate SPPF

3
4

5 Figure 5. Mean scores obtained from the groups for the indicators of the attribute Stability of
6 production systems of family livestock in the Pampa biome in 2016.

14.00 Stability
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

7
8
9 Figure 6. Mean scores obtained from the groups for the indicators of the attribute Adaptability
10 of the systems of production of family livestock in the Pampa biome in 2016.

3 [Digite texto]
4
1 16
2
Adaptability
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

Less sustainable SPPF Most sustainable SPPF Intermediate SPPF

1
2
3 Figure 7. Mean scores obtained from the groups for the indicators of the Equity of livestock
4 production systems in the Pampa biome in 2016.

16.00
Equity
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
g s d r s il ea A
d lin ite t em t em h er y ea r op so ar UA
n a s s y s s/ c h e l s/
ha r sy s he y nt t ta os
t
d l pa h e t he oft da e re s in /to l c
n t e
a na in in al
e r
di
ff
tic
e ld ica
o w t er ld e d s c e isu f c fie m
d ex fie a t d L o r a ve e
ha d e tiv ar b er tp ati och
,r s a n ti v
cu
l d m is N r
e al na an Nu tio
n ag
at r n d ure St a
w te ve st rv
ood in p ro Pa nse
o
G t Im co
nce of
ta r
sis be
e m
R Nu

Less sustainable SPPF Most sustainable SPPF Intermediate SPPF

5
6
7 Figure 8. Mean scores obtained from the groups for the indicators of the Equity of the livestock
8 production systems in the Pampa biome in 2016.

3 [Digite texto]
4
1 17
2

Self-sufficiency
12.00
6.00
0.00

Less sustainable SPPF Most sustainable SPPF Intermediate SPPF

1
2
3 Frame 1. SWOT generated for the family livestock production systems in the Pampa biome.
Strengths Weaknesses
Liquidity Native and toxic invading plants
Low risk External mechanization dependence
Lower technological structure Technological problems of the crop
Proceeds as income support Resistance to change
Availability of labor Age
Credit availability Increase in animal concentration by area
Domain of factors of production Individualism
Opportunities Threats
Savings reserve Animal health
Lower impairment of equity Debt
Lower indebtedness Areas of marginal soils
Income diversification Lack of scale
Profitability of labor Succession
Opportunity for new investments Low self-esteem
Decision-making ability
4
5 Table 1. Diagnostic criteria, Indicators, description of the indicators and weighting, within each
6 MESMIS attribute, generated for the systems of production of family livestock in the Pampa
7 biome.

3 [Digite texto]
4
 Deliberation
Attributes Diagnostic criteria Indicators Description of Indicators
(%)
Gross revenue from Observed values (%). Lower %
1 Economic 18
other activities corresponds to greater 15
2 Viability
sustainability
1 * Net Revenue/UAA Observed values (%). Greater %
2 The Economic
corresponds to greater 25
Viability
sustainability
Number of machines Observed values (cm). Greater
Level of
and implements/ha of relation corresponds to greater 10
technification
crops sustainability
Relationship Grass height Observed values (cm). Greater
between load and height corresponds to greater
carrying capacity sustainability 20
of the native field
Produtivity (n=5)

Seasonal quality, invasive forages and Scale from 1 to 6, where the

age of present soil cover most sustainable value
species, presence corresponds to 1 (covered soil
of small invaders without invasives) 20
and/or dirty field,
uncovered soil
.
Incorporation into Culture incorporation Level 1 (more sustainable):
the system time Consolidated crops. Level 2: 8
Unbound
crops in the system Observed values (%). Lower%
Percentual no
of crops correspond to greater 8
Sistema.
sustainability
Presence of different Level 1 (more sustainable):
crops presence of different crops,
Type of culture 4
except soybean. Level 2:
soybean cultivation
Existence and Existence and Scale from 1 to 4, where the
predisposition of predisposition to most sustainable value
successors to succession corresponds to 1 (successor
20
continue the exists)
activity

Land in usufruct, Hectares of land/heir Observed values, being more

existence of other sustainable higher value of
20
assets, amount of H/heir
heirs
Housing and Scale from 0 to 8 (more
House, light
Stability (n=5)

transportation sustainable), considers the

source, water 10
supply and quality of water,
source, locomotion
light, housing and transportation
Health services Health and Sanitation Scale from 0 to 5 (more
and working sustainable), considers the
10
conditions supply and quality of health
services and working conditions
Retirement/ Income of origin of Percentage of the total income
Provision of the animal production with origin of the observed
Services/Other animal production, being more
20
Income/Animal sustainable the greater
Production percentage

Area of native Observed values (%). Greater%

Legal reserve vegetation/total area corresponds to greater 20
sustainability
Formal education Scale from 0 to 5, where 0
Level of formal
represents no formal education
education 12,5
and level 5 (more sustainable),
higher education in agriculture
Productive and Number of training Values observed, the more
3 [Digite texto] non-productive courses in the last 3 courses, the more sustainable
tability (n=4)

4 capacity in the last years 12,5

three years

Level of Number of groups in Observed values; Greater

1 19
2
1 attribute-weighted total is 100%
2 ]

6 Table 2. Averages for the general characteristics of production systems of family livestock in the
7 Pampa biome in 2016.
Mean Minimum Maximum
Owner’s age (years) 53 22 79
UAA1 64,86 5,00 224,00
AU2 59,57 4,00 271,33
AU/UAA 0,92 0,80 1,21
No. of calves/female of reproductive age 0,45 0,00 5,00
Ability to generate surplus 8,80 0,00 60,75
Costs/UAAa 883,62 30,81 4.716,67
Costs/AUa 916,46 86,10 4.707,69
3
UAA/HWU 30,40 2,00 108,00
AU/HWU 28,92 1,76 135,67
Net income/Family HWUa 23.800,11 11.970,00 181.660,00
8 Usable Agricultural Area (UAA), in hectares; 2 Animal Unit (AU), equivalent to 450 kg of live weight; 3
9 Human Work Unit (HWU);a Costs and revenues reported by the producer, not obtained through the
10 traditional accounting method, expressed in Reais (R $).
11

12 Table 3. Mean scores obtained from groups for sustainability attributes of family livestock
13 production systems in the Pampa biome in 2016.
Intermediate Less sustainable
Most sustainable SPPF
Group SPPF SPPF
(n=23)
(n=30) (n=37)
a a
Productivity 69,81 76,52 52,77b
Stability 47,50a 33,36b 33,13b
Adaptability 18,03a 7,30b 11,61b
Equity 84,08a 68,77b 69,23b
Self-sufficiency 35,86a 39,18a 33,83a
14 ANOVA. Same attributes with different letters indicate significant differences between groups. (P <0.05).
15
16

3 [Digite texto]
4