Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles
BRAZIL
by
Paulo César de Faccio Carvalho
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented,
does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of
a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of FAO.
All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for
resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications
for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning
rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing
Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale
delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.
© FAO 2006
3
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
5
Brazilian global economy
6
Social indicators
6
The agricultural sector
7
The farming sector
7
The ruminant sector
7
2. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY 9
Geology of Brazil
9
Geomorphology
9
Soil types
9
3. CLIMATE AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES 11
General climate
11
Northern Region
12
Northeast Region
12
Southern Region
13
Southeast and West-Central Regions
13
Agro-ecological Zones
13
“Amazônia” (Amazon Forest)
13
The Semi-arid “Caatinga”
14
The “Cerrado”
15
The Atlantic Forest
15
The “Pantanal Mato-Grossense”
15
Other formations
16
4. RUMINANT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
17
5. THE PASTURE RESOURCE
19
Amazônia Forage profile
20
Cerrado forage profile
21
Mata Atlântica forage profile
22
Caatinga forage profile
23
Pantanal forage profile
23
Pampa (Campos) forage profile
24
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FODDER RESOURCES
25
Greater use of legumes
25
Managing grazing intensities
26
Managing grazing intensities on native pastures
26
Managing grazing intensities on cultivated pastures
27
Sward targets: a recent orientation for grassland management (see Silva & Carvalho, 2005)
28
Pasture fertilization
29
Supplements
30
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
4
Technological demands
31
Non-technological demands
32
7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL
32
Key institutions
33
8. REFERENCES
34
9. CONTACTS
35
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Brazil is a very young country. It was discovered in 1500 by the Portuguese navigator Pedro Álvares
Cabral and was Portuguese until 1822, when it became independent. Abolition of slavery came in the
same century, in 1888, and the first Republic was established two years later. The large majority of slaves
brought to Brazil came from African ethnic groups including Bantu from Southern Africa (the Congo,
Angola and Mozambique), as well as Samba, Moxicongo and Anjico, and ethnic groups from the northwestern coast of Africa such as Nago, Jeje, Fanti, Achanti Haussa, Mandinga, Tapa and Fulla, originating
from regions from Senegal to Nigeria.
With the Portuguese being the first, there have been many immigrations from Europe, principally
in the 19th century (Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland and Ukraine), as well as from Japan, Syria and the
Lebanon. From 1875 until 1960, about 5 000 000 Europeans emigrated to Brazil. All these immigrations
were added to an indigenous population estimated at 5 000 000 when European colonists first arrived (at
present reduced to thousands), which conferred on Brazil a uniquely rich ethnic and cultural diversity.
The census carried out by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics-IBGE (2000) indicated
that the Brazilian population was some 169 590 693 inhabitants, which corresponds to a geometric
medium annual growth rate of 1.93%. This last census indicates a strong tendency to a changing
population age pyramid with an increasing age span. Life expectancy at birth of the total population is
66.7 years for men and 74.1 years for women. According to the World Factbook the July 2006 estimate
was 188 078 227 with a growth rate of 1.04%.
Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world with 2.8% of the world’s population. Despite
having less than 11% of the total territory, the South-east region contains 42% of the Brazilian people.
On average the population density is not very high (19.92 hab/km2) but it varies strongly between
different communities (0.13 to 12 897.8 hab/km2). In the last five decades there has been an enormous
reversal in the ratio of rural/urban population. At present, only 18.8% live in the countryside.
In terms of political organization, Brazil is a Federation, composed of a Federal Union, 26 states,
1 Federal District and 5 507 municipalities. The government system is presidential, organised on
Federal, State and Municipal levels.
Brazil is located in the Western
Hemisphere, between the meridians
34° 47’ 30” and 73° 59’ 32” to west of
Greenwich. Located between the parallel of
5° 16’ 20” of north latitude and 33° 44’ 42”
of south, it is cut to the north by the
Equator and, to the south, by the Tropic
of Capricorn, therefore, about 90% of its
territory in the Southern Hemisphere. Part
of the American continent, Brazil is the only
Portuguese-speaking nation in the Americas
(see Figure 1).
Brazil is in the centre-oriental portion of
South America and has a border with nine
countries: Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay,
Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela,
Guyana and Suriname, and with the French
Department of Guiana; exceptions are
Ecuador and Chile (Figure 2).
Its dimensions characterize it as a
continental country, its territory occupying
1.6% of the surface of the terrestrial
globe, with 5.7% of the dry land of the
planet and 20.8% of the surface of the
American continent, as well as 12.7% of Figure 1. Latin America and Brazil
6
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
the world’s river water (5,190 km3 a
year). The Brazilian territorial area is
8 514 876 599 km2 and its perimeter
embraces 23 086 km, being bounded
over 7 367 km, by the Atlantic Ocean,
that is to say 31.9% of its borders. It is
the third largest country in area and the
largest in South America, occupying
66% of the South American territorial
area. This area comprises arable land
(5%), permanent crops (1%), permanent
pastures (22%), forests and woodland
(58%) and others (14%) (1993 est.).
Brazilian global economy
Brazil is the tenth-largest economy in
the world, with 1999 Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of US$ 557.5 billion produced by well-developed agricultural,
Figure 2. Location of Brazil and its political divisions
mining, manufacturing, and service sectors. Between 1993 and 1998 the GDP
increased 80% (US$ 429.7 to US$ 775.5 billions), the same period in which the annual inflation rate
dropped from 2 489.1% to 2.4%. The 1999 performance reflects the 1998 global economic crisis. The GDP
per capita is US$ 3 403 (2004 est.). The GDP composition by sector in 2004 was: agriculture: 10.1%; industry 38.6% and services 51.3%. This was distributed in the following way: agriculture having as main products coffee, soybeans, wheat, rice; industry having as main products textiles, shoes, chemicals, cement and
iron ore. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Brazil totaled US$ 609 billion in the period from January
to September 2005. Brazil represents 31.1% of Latin America GDP. According to forecasts by the Institute
of Applied Economic Research, the country GDP should have grown 2.3% in 2005.
Brazil has a highly diversified economy with wide variations in levels of development, having
the most advanced industrial sectors in Latin America. Industries range from automobiles, steel, and
petrochemicals, to computers, aircraft, and consumer durables. The leading manufacturing industries
produce textiles, shoes, food products, steel, motor vehicles, ships, and machinery. Most large industry
is concentrated in the south and southeast. The northeast is traditionally the poorest part of Brazil, but is
now beginning to attract new investment.
Brazil has vast mineral wealth, including iron ore (it is the world’s largest producer), quartz, chrome
ore, manganese, industrial diamonds, gem stones, gold, nickel, tin, bauxite, uranium, and platinum.
Natural resources also include petroleum and hydropower. Most of Brazil’s electricity comes from
waterpower and it possesses extensive untapped hydroelectric potential, particularly in the Amazon
basin.
In addition to coffee, Brazil’s exports include iron, concentrated orange juice, soybeans, and footwear.
In 1999 exports totaled US$ 48 billion. Crude oil, manufactured goods, and chemical products head the
imports (US$ 49.2 billion) leading to a trade balance which has been negative since 1995. Most trade is
with the European Union nations, the United States of America, Argentina, and Japan. Recently, Brazil’s
exports increased as a consequence of policies specifically oriented towards export which reached
U$ 118.309 billion in 2005.
Social indicators
Brazil is a country of contrasts and significant poverty levels contrast with the relatively high GDP;
around 32 000 000 people were below the poverty line in 1993. The concentration of wealth is among
the highest in the world, with the 10% richest sharing 47.9% of income, yet the 10% poorest share only
0.8%. Malnutrition affects 5% of children under five, which contributes to an infant mortality rate of
3.6% live births. Unemployment rate averaged 7.6% in 1999.
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
7
Table 1. Production of the main grain crops in Brazil (in
The agricultural sector
Brazilian agriculture is well diversified, tonnes)
Rice
Bean
Maize
Soybean
Wheat
and the country is largely self-sufficient Cotton
in food. The sector contributes 14% of 3 612 176 13 262 373 2 978 240 41 872 304 49 221 619 5 814 603
the GDP, and all the agricultural chain (IBGE 2004)
27%, employing almost 17 900 000
people. Of these, 67% are male and 14% are under 14 years of age. Brazil produced 119.294 million
tons of grains in 2004, harvested from 47.329 million ha, particularly soybean, maize, rice, bean and
wheat (Table 1).
Other important crops are sugar cane (330 million tons), citrus fruits (32 million tons) and coffee
(30 million bags). Cocoa, tobacco, and banana are also important. Forestry accounts for 4% of the GDP.
In 2005, a decrease in cultivated area of about 4.68% lead to a production of 112.715 million tonne,
5.51% lower than 2004.
The largest agricultural exports (in value) in 1998 were coffee, soybeans, soybean cake, orange juice
and sugar. Soybean is the major agricultural commodity when all of its products (raw soybean, meal,
oil, etc) are added. The total value of agricultural exports in 1998 was US$ 15.3 billion, while the total
value of agricultural imports in 1998 was US$ 6 306.4 million. Wheat and dairy products are the main
agricultural imports. Brazilian agribusiness and policies are strongly oriented towards international
markets due to the need to achieve a positive commercial balance and because agriculture is one of the
main sources of income.
The farming sector
According to the “Confederação Nacional de Agricultura” (CNA, 2001), 85% of farmers are land
owners with an average age of 52 years (32% under 45, 11% over 70). Most of them have a low level of
schooling, with two thirds having less than 6 years schooling; the younger have more. To illustrate the
contrasting characteristics of almost all Brazilian indexes, nearly half of farms (44%) have no access to
electricity and 60% have no tractors, but 17% of farmers have computers!
Average farm size is not very informative in so vast a country. Two thirds of the farms in Brazil
are under 100 ha. In Southern Brazil the average is 92 ha while in “Centro-Oeste” it is 897 ha. Land
concentration has been a trend since the middle of the last century. In 1996, 4 800 000 farms occupied
350 000 000 ha and of these 80.6% were under 50 ha, but shared only 12.2% of the total agricultural
land. On the other hand, 1% of farms were larger than 1 000 ha, occupying 45.1% of all land used in
agriculture.
The distance between farm and the nearest urban centre is 23 km on average, but again there are many
contrasts (in “Centro-Oeste” it is 350 km). The tendency to migration is variable, being 33 for each 100
farms in the South compared with 66 for each 100 farms in the Southeast region.
In Southern Brazil, 46% of farmers earn less than US$ 100/year/farm (liquid revenue), the gross
revenue being US$ 318/ha (all activities comprised, but this is only US$ 150/ha in “Pernambuco” state,
to illustrate the variability). To understand how farmers can survive with such a low income it should be
mentioned that 64% of commercial farmers have other off- farm sources of revenue.
Government finances only 16% of rural commercial activities. Consequently, 34% of farmers believe
that the major limitation to their activity is credit. Only 0.3% believe that technology is a primary
limiting factor. This probably reflects the average low level of education. For example, in the most
intensive ruminant sector, the dairy cattle sector, only 5% of farmers own milking machines and 5.9%
use artificial insemination. Of these farmers, 0.2%% believe that extension is the major limitation even
if only 34% of them received some type of agricultural assistance at least once a year, but 71% intend to
increase it. Less than 1% of Brazilian farmers carry out any kind of natural resource protection, despite
the great increase in soil conservation by direct drilling, mainly concentrated in Southern Brazil in recent
years.
The ruminant sector
The predominant production system is based on grazing and relying on native and cultivated pastures,
which are grazed at continuous stocking all year round. Forage conservation is only utilized in intensive
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
8
dairy production systems and some rare feed-lot systems. Of the 164 621 040 cattle (in 1999; by
2004 numbers were 192 million), 74.5% are beef cattle and 21.5% dairy cattle. In addition there are
14 399 960 sheep (14.2 M in 2004), 1 068 059 buffaloes (1.2M in 2004) and 8 622 935 goats (9.1 M
in 2004), the latter showing a considerable increase recently. To complete the domestic herbivore
population (and those requiring forage) there are 5 831 341 horses (5.9 M in 2004) and 2 572 172 other
equidea. While stock numbers have been more or less the same since 1994 (for cattle), the number
slaughtered have increased almost two fold. About 31 600 000 head were slaughtered in 1999, with
only 3 200 000 receiving any kind of intensification during the production process (conserved forage,
supplements, feed-lot, etc.). For details of livestock numbers, meat and milk production and some
imports and exports see Table 2.
It is estimated that 38.0 kg/year of beef are consumed per capita (in the mainly metropolitan regions).
To give an idea of its market value, in 1999 the farmer received on average US$ 0.6/kg of liveweight.
His product has different destinations; on average 65% of the beef goes to supermarkets, restaurants,
hotels and industrial catering, 30% to butcher’s and 5% to special meat shops. In 1993, the beef sector
provided 6 834 000 jobs, involving 1 793 324 farm units and occupying 221 982 144 ha. In 1999 it
produced 6 500 000 tonnes of carcass-equivalent (7 774 000 in 2004). Other meat products include
5 526 000 tonnes of chicken (8 668 000 in 2004) and 2 400 000 tonnes of pork (3 110 000 in 2004).
In 2000 twenty billion litres of milk were produced (23 billion litres by 2004), which represent
a production of 4.9 litres/cow/day. Milk consumption per capita is around 246 ml (daily intake
recommendation is 400 ml/day) and 75% of national consumption goes to 20% of the population. Dairy
products, apart from wheat, were until recently the most important agricultural import, accounting
for US$ US$ 443 M in 1999 (US$ 114.4 M in 2003), however from the 1999 importation figure of
2,41 billion litres of milk, this fell to only 0,73 billion litres in 2001 and 0.55 billion litres in 2003. In
2004 the dairy sector trade presented a positive commercial balance of US$ 11.5 M and Brazil started
to become a dairy exporter. The dairy sector has been deregulated during the last decade and at present
60% of the Brazilian market is controlled by transnational companies. Imports pass to private industry.
European milk enters Brazil at half of its actual cost.
Exports of meat was valued at some US$ 443 835 000 in 1997: by 1999 there were exports of
150 000 Mt of meat, mainly to Europe (50.6%) and USA (37.44%). Exports increased to 620 117 Mt of
carcass-equivalent in 2003 worth US$ 1 154 508 000.
Table 2. Brazil statistics for livestock numbers, beef & veal, sheep, goat meat and milk production,
beef & veal exports and dairy product imports and exports for the period 1996–2005
Item
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Cattle nos. (,000,000)
158.3
161.4
163.2
164.6
169.9
176.4
185.4
189.5
192.0
192.0
Sheep nos. (,000,000)
14.7
14.5
14.3
14.4
14.8
14.6
14.3
14.6
14.2
14.2
Goat nos. (,000,000)
7.4
8.0
8.2
8.6
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.6
9.1
9.1
Buffalo nos. (,000,000)
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
Horse nos. (,000,000)
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
Beef & veal prod. (mt)
(,000,000)
6.2
5.9
5.8
6.4
6.6
6.8
7.1
7.2
7.8
7.8
Sheep meat prod. (mt) (,000)
69.9
70.1
67.8
71.4
71.5
71.5
68.6
68.1
76
76
Goat meat prod. (mt) (,000)
26.8
31
34.3
38.3
38.5
38.6
39.8
40.5
40.5
40.5
Milk prod. (,000,000 mt)
19.2
19.4
19.4
19.8
20.5
21.3
22.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
Beef & veal exports mt (,000)
46.7
52.5
80.9
150.7
188.7
368.3
430.2
620.1*
925.1
n.a.
Milk equivalents exports mt
(,000)
44.7
24.0
12.2
9.6
17.3
56.8
107.6
134.2
279.4
n.a.
Milk equivalents imports mt
(,000)
1 920.6
1 429.7
1 850
1 960.9
1 561.9
733.8
1 286.4
549.1
399.7
n.a.
(FAO Database 2006)
Source: FAOSTAT 2006
n.a. - not available
* in addition there were 164 234 Mt of beef preparations and dried beef exports, 1.9 M Mt of chicken meat exports as well as 39 186 Mt of
canned chicken, and 544 208 Mt of pork and pigmeat exports.
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
9
2. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY
Geology of Brazil
Brazil is totally within the South American Platform, whose basement is of very complex geologic
evolution, originating in the Archean period. Brazil had its consolidation completed between the
Proterozoic Superior period and the beginning of the Palaeozoic period, with the closing of the Brazilian
cycle. The basement of the South American Platform is essentially on metamorphic rocks of amphibolite
to granulite facies and granitoids of Archean age, associated with the Proterozoic units that are usually
represented by folded strips of green schist facies and sedimentary and volcanic coverings (seldom
metamorphosed) and several granitoids. That basement is widely exposed in great shields, separated
from each other by fanerozoic coverings, whose limits extend to the neighbouring countries. Prominent
are the shields of Guyana, Central Brazil and the Atlantic.
The Guyana shield extends to the north of the basin of “Amazonas”. The Brazil-central, or Guaporé
shield extends to the interior of Brazil and south of that basin, while the Atlantic shield is exposed in the
eastern portion reaching the Atlantic. These shields are exposed in more than 50% of the area of Brazil.
On that platform were developed in Brazil, in stable conditions of ortho-platform, starting from
Ordovician-Silurian, the sedimentary and volcanic coverings that spatially filled three extensive basins
with sineclisis character: “Amazonas”, “Paraíba” and “Paraná”. Besides those basins, several other
smaller basins, including coastal basins and other sedimentary areas, are exposed on the platform.
Geomorphology
The relief of Brazil is divided into two great plateau areas and three plain areas as follows:
• Guyana Plateau, embracing the mountainous area and the Amazon North Plateau, in the extreme
north of the country, it is an integral part of the shield of Guyana, presenting Precambrian crystalline rocks. This area includes the highest point in Brazil - the “Pico da Neblina”, with an altitude
of 3 014 m.
• Brazilian plateau, subdivided into Central, “Maranhão-Piauí”, North-eastern Brazil, mountains and
plateau of the East and Southeast, Southern and “Uruguayan-Riograndense”, is formed by quite
worn crystalline lands and sedimentary basins. It is located in the central part of the country, and
encompasses great areas of the national territory.
• Plains and Amazon low lands, in the North of the country, below the Plateau of Guyana, present
three different altimetrical levels - valleys, constituted by lands of recent formation near the margins of the rivers; fluvial terraces, with maximum altitudes of 30 m and periodically flooded; and
low-plateaus, formed by lands of Tertiary age.
• Plain of the “Pantanal”, in the west of the state of “Mato Grosso” do Sul and Southwest of “Mato
Grosso”, are formed by lands of Quaternary age. Plains and coastal lowlands, along the coast from
“Maranhão” to the south of the country, are formed by lands of the Tertiary and by current lands
of the Quaternary.
It should be noted that the Brazilian relief does not present formations of very high mountainous
chains and prevailing altitudes are below 500 m, since it was developed on an old geologic base, without
recent tectonic movements.
Soil types
In agronomic terms, it should be noted that the main soils are Ferralsols, which are strongly predominant.
Ferralsols are extremely weathered soils, often developed on transported materials of Pleistocene or older
age in a humid or very humid tropical climate and covered by a tropical rain forest or semi-deciduous
forest. These soils are characterised by the dominance of kaolinite clays and a residual accumulation of
iron and aluminium oxides and hydroxides, a stable soil structure, a low silt/clay ratio and a very low
content of weatherable minerals. They are deep to very deep and generally show yellowish or reddish
colours. Ironstone nodules and iron-pans, inherited from previous land surfaces, are common.
Ferralsols are poor chemically, with a low ion exchange capacity, and nutrient reserves that are
easily depleted by agricultural practices, while fixation of phosphorus is a major problem. The content
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
10
Figure 3. Details of the soil of Brazil
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
11
of available aluminium may reach toxic levels (84% have acidity constraints), as may manganese also.
On the other hand, the physical characteristics of these soils are quite favourable; because of their high
permeability and stable micro-structure they are less prone to erosion. Ferralsols are easy to work but
the surface is liable to compaction and crusting if heavy machinery is used to clear forest or if they are
overgrazed.
The chemical constraints of these soils may be overcome in part by careful fertilization, including
both phosphate and lime, but attention must be paid to mode and timing of application. Ferralsols are
used to grow a variety of annual and perennial tropical crops, either by sedentary or shifting cultivators.
According to the FAO classification there are still Acrisols and Leptosols. In a lesser extent, Lixisols,
Plinthosols, Arenosols and others.
According to the Soil Aptitude Chart of Brazil, 35% of the territory is not recommended for agriculture
due to low fertility and steep slopes. Salinity is not a significant factor, accounting for 2% of the land
surface. 7% of soils are shallow. Only 9% of the surface has no constraints for agricultural use, with
little nutrient limitation, good drainage as well as physical soil properties, and sufficient precipitation.
3. CLIMATE AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES
General climate
The climate of a given area is conditioned by several factors, among them are: temperature, rains,
atmospheric humidity, winds and atmospheric pressure - which, in turn, are conditioned by factors such
as altitude, latitude, relief characteristics, vegetation and continentality.
Brazil, due to its continental dimensions, possesses a very wide climatic diversity, influenced by its
geographical configuration, its significant coastal extension, its relief and the dynamics of the masses of
air on its territory. This last factor assumes great importance, because it acts directly on the temperatures
and the pluviometric indices in the different areas of the country.
The air masses, especially those that occur more directly in Brazil, are, according to the Statistical
Annual of Brazil (IBGE): the Equatorial air mass, which is divided into Continental Equatorial and
Atlantic Equatorial; the Tropical air mass, also divided into Continental Tropical and Atlantic Tropical;
and the Polar Atlantic air mass. All these air masses provide the climatic differentiation in Brazil
(Figure 4).
Thus climates vary from very humid and hot climates, coming from the Equatorial air masses, as is
the case for the great part of the Amazon area; to very strong semi-arid climates, such as those in the
hinterlands of north-eastern Brazil.
The Northern Area and part of the interior of the North-east region experience annual medium
temperatures above 25 oC, while in the South of the country and part of the Southeast annual medium
temperatures are below 20 oC. Absolute maxima above 40 oC are observed in the interior lowlands of
the Northeast Area with little variability during the year, which characterises the hot climate of these
regions. In mid-latitudes, temperature variation throughout the year is very important for climate
definition in the depressions, valleys and lowlands of the Southeast; in the “Pantanal” and lower areas of
the Middle-West; and in the central depressions and in the valley of the river Uruguay, in the Southern
Area. Absolute minima, with frequent negative values, are observed in the mountainous summits
of the South-east and in a large part of the South, where they are accompanied by frosts and snow.
During winter, there is a greater penetration of high-latitude cold air masses, which contributes to the
predominance of low temperatures.
Because of its great territorial extension, Brazil presents varied precipitation and temperature
regimes. All over the country, a great variety of climates with distinct regional characteristics can be
found. In the North of the country, a rainy equatorial climate is found, with practically no dry season. In
the Northeast, the rainy season, with low rainfall indexes, is restricted to a few months, characterising a
semi-arid climate. The Southeast and West-Central regions are influenced not only by tropical systems
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
12
Figure 4. Climate of Brazil
(IBGE, 2005)
but also by mid-latitudes, with a dry season well defined in the winter and a rainy summer season with
convective rain. The South of Brazil, due to its latitude, is affected mostly by mid-latitude systems, in
which the frontal systems cause most of the rain during the year.
Northern Region
The Northern Region has spatial and seasonal temperature homogeneity, but the same is not observed
in terms of rainfall. This region receives the greatest total annual rainfall, especially notable at the coast
of the “Amapá” State, at the south of the “Amazonas” river and at the western part of the region, where
precipitation exceeds 3 000 mm. In this region, three abundant precipitation centres are identified:
• the first one is in the Northwest of the Amazon, with rainfall above 3 000 mm/year. The existence
of this centre is associated with the condensation of humid air brought by easterly winds from the
Intertropical Convergence Zone, with high rainfall where the flow rises to the Andes Mountains.
• the second centre is in the central part of Amazon, around 5º S, with precipitation of 2 500 mm
(year),
• and the third one, in the eastern part of the Amazonian base, close to the city of Belém, with precipitation of 2 800 mm/year.
Therefore three rainfall regimes can be identified in the northern region of Brazil:
• one in the Northwest, where rain is abundant throughout the whole year, reaching a maximum in
April-May-June, with more than 3 000 mm/year;
• the second one in a zonally oriented band, extending to the central part of Amazon, where the rainy
season takes place in March-April-May;
• and the third one in the Southern part of the Amazonian region where the rainfall peak occurs in
January-February-March.
Northeast Region
In terms of rainfall, there is considerable climatic variation in the Northeast (NE), ranging from a semiarid climate interior, with an accumulated precipitation lower than 500 mm/year, to a rainy climate
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
13
mainly observed on the east coast, with an accumulated annual precipitation above 1 500 mm. The
northern part of the region receives between 1 000 and 1 200 mm/year. Similar to the Northern Region,
temperature in most of the NE also has a great seasonal and spatial homogeneity. Only in the south of
“Bahia” is there a greater seasonal variability in temperature, in view of the penetration of relatively
cold masses in winter.
Different rainfall regimes are identified in the NE. In the north of the region, the main rainy season
is from March to May, in the south and Southeast rain occurs mainly during the period from December
to February, and in the east the rainy season occurs from May to July. The main rainy season in the NE,
including the north and east of the region, which accounts for 60% of the annual rainfall, occurs from April
to July and the dry season, for the greatest part of the region, takes place from September to December.
Southern Region
The annual distribution of rain in the south of Brazil is quite uniform. Throughout almost all the territory,
the precipitation annual average varies from 1 250 to 2 000 mm. Only a few areas are not within this
rainfall range. Above 2 000 mm are the coast of “Paraná”, the east of “Santa Catarina” and the area
around “São Francisco de Paula”, in “Rio Grande do Sul”. Values below 1 250 mm are restricted to the
southern coast of “Santa Catarina” and to the north of “Paraná”. Relief exerts little influence on rainfall
distribution in this region. Temperature, in its turn, plays a role in the same sense as precipitation,
reinforcing climate uniformly in the south of the country. However, this is the region in Brazil with
greater thermal variability throughout the year.
Southeast and West-Central Regions
Because of their location, the Southeast and West-Central regions are characterized as regions of
transition between low latitude hot climates and mid-latitude temperate mesothermic climates. The
south of the Southeast and West-Central regions are affected by the majority of synoptic systems that
affect the south of the country, with some differences in the system’s intensity and seasonality. The
inverted troughs act mainly during winter, causing moderate weather conditions, especially in the
States of “Mato Grosso do Sul” and “São Paulo”. Upper level cyclonic vortices from the Pacific region
organize themselves with intense convection associated to the instability caused by the subtropical jet.
Pre-frontal instability lines, generated from the association of large-scale dynamic factors and mesoscale
characteristics, are responsible for intense precipitation. In the highland regions, located in the eastern
part of the Southeast, minimum temperature extremes are registered during winter, while the highest
temperatures are observed in the State of “Mato Grosso”, in the Central region of Brazil. In general,
precipitation is evenly distributed in these regions, with the accumulated annual average precipitation
ranging from 1 500 to 2 000 mm. Two maximum nuclei are registered in the Central region of Brazil
and in the coast of the Southeast Region, whereas in the north of the State of “Minas Gerais” there is a
relative shortage of rain throughout the year.
Agro-ecological Zones
Brazil is known as the world’s richest country in terms of its mega diversity, with its fauna and flora
comprising at least 10–20% of the world’s species described to date (Brazil, Convention on Biological
Diversity). The vegetation changes from North to South, expressing the different environmental
conditions. The main phytogeographic zones are shown in Figure 5.
“Amazônia” (Amazon Forest)
The Amazon Forest occupies the North of Brazil, embracing about 49.29% of the national territory or
4 196 943 km2, and could encompass all of the European Union (15) countries. It is the largest forest
formation on the planet, and is conditioned by the humid equatorial climate. This is the most wellpreserved biome, with about 85% of the Brazilian Amazon still forested. About 15% of the Amazon
forest has been destroyed, with the opening up of highways, through mining, colonisation and logging,
and the advance of the agricultural frontier.
This area possesses a great variety of vegetation physiognomies, from dense forests to floodplain
open mixed forests. Dense forests are represented by forests of the Lowland (“terra firme”), the “várzea”
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
14
Figure 5. Main Biomes of Brazil
(IBGE, 2005)
forests which are periodically flooded, and the “igapó” forests, which are permanently flooded as
happens in almost the entire central region of the Amazon.
The savannahs and savannah woodlands of “Roraima” are on poor soils in the northern end of the
basin of “Rio Branco”. The “Campinaranas” or “Caatinga amazônica” are white sand forest, being
spread in “stains” along Rio Negro’s basin. These last two formations consist of the “Cerrado” type of
vegetation, thus being areas of “Cerrado” isolated from the main “Cerrado” ecosystem of the Brazilian
central plateau. Mixed forest with palms, semi-deciduous forests, lianes, bamboo forests and tidal zones
are also important vegetation types.
The Semi-arid “Caatinga”
(see Plate 1)
This area of uncertain rainfall embraces
all the states of the Brazilian Northeast,
in addition to the north of “Minas
Gerais”, occupying about 9.92% of
the national territory (844.453 million km2). It is a vast semi-arid
steppe area comprising thorn scrub
(“Caatinga”) and dry deciduous forest (“Caatinga alta”), as well as isolated rain forest patches (“brejos”) and
rocky outcrops (“lajeiros”). Its interior,
the “Sertão” of northeastern Brazil, is
Plate 1. Caatinga
(photo by Magno J. D. Cândido)
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
15
characterised by the occurrence of the very thin vegetation of the semi-arid “Caatinga”. The highest
areas or “Agreste”, which are subject to less intense droughts, are located closer to the coast. The transition area between “Caatinga” and “Amazônia” is known as Middle-north or “Zona dos Cocais” (Palm
zone). Suffering from prolonged droughts, desertification, soil erosion and salinization, the “Caatinga”
has lost 50% of its native vegetation. Extensive cattle-ranching, agriculture, resource extraction, and
subsistence farming have all had major impacts in this biome. Hunting for food is an important additional factor, especially in the dry season.
The “Cerrado”
The “Cerrado” (see Plate 2) occupies the area of the Brazilian Central Plateau. The continuous area
of the “Cerrado” corresponds to 23.92% of the national territory (2 036 448 km2), and there are great
patches also in the Amazon and some smaller ones in the “Caatinga” and also in the Atlantic forest. Its
climate presents two very different and defined aspects. The season of “águas” and the season of “secas”,
corresponding to wet and dry seasons, respectively, which are very well defined. The “Cerrado” presents
varied physiognomies, from clear areas lacking woody vegetation to “cerradões”, which are dense
arboreal formations. This area is permeated by dendritic forests and pathways that follow the courses of
water, and includes high altitude moorlands.
The “Cerrado” biome, which has
suffered from the enormous advance
of the agricultural frontier in recent
decades, has already lost over 40% of its
native vegetation through the expansion
of crops, cattle ranching, and dramatic
increases in human population. More than
50% of the remaining natural ecosystems
have been degraded. Burning, both for
the maintenance and creation of cattle
pasture and for plantations is a common
practice, and results in soil erosion
as well as serious loss of biological
diversity. Economic activities of some
sort are present throughout the majority Plate 2. Typical Cerrado scene
of the remaining area.
(photo by Rodrigo A. Barbosa)
The Atlantic Forest
The Atlantic forest, including the semi-caducifolius seasonal forests, was originally the forest of greatest
latitudinal extension on the planet, ranging from southern latitudes of 6 to 32 degrees (Joly et al., 1999).
This ecosystem corresponds to 13.04% of the national territory (1 110 182 km2). Due to centuries of
deforestation, nowadays the Atlantic forest only has 4% of its original area and only about 8.75% of the
original forest cover remains as scarce patches.
There is great climatic variability throughout its distribution, going from temperate, super-humid
climates in the extreme south, to tropical humid and semi-arid in the northeast. The uneven relief of the
coastal zone adds still more variability to this ecosystem, which includes montane, restingas (coastal
forests and scrub on sandy soils), mangroves and the “Araucária” forests and grasslands of the Campos
zone in the south. In the valleys trees are generally well developed, forming a dense forest. On slopes
the forest is less dense, due to frequent fall of trees. It is one of the most important repositories of
biodiversity in the country and in the world.
The “Pantanal Mato-Grossense”
The “Pantanal” is the largest plain subject to regular flooding (see Plate 3) on the planet, covered
by mainly open vegetation, which occupies 1.76% of the national territory (150 355 km2). This
ecosystem is formed largely by sandy lands, covered with different physiognomies due to the variety
of micro-reliefs and flood regimes. Savannah, parkland savannah (campo limpo), evergreen gallery
16
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
forest, seasonal semideciduous forest
and chaco are the main vegetation
formations. As a transitional area
between “Cerrado” and “Amazônia”,
the “Pantanal” contains a mosaic of
terrestrial ecosystems. Ranching
became the main economic activity,
with cattle-raising on floodplain native
grasslands, realizing that the land is
not a swamp in spite of its misleading
toponymn.
Other formations
The Fields of the South (Campos Plate 3. Typical Pantanal scene
(photo by Sandra A. Santos)
zone or Pampas)
The Campos zone (see Plate 4) occurs
in the subtropical climate of the extreme
south, and represents 2.07% of the
national territory (176 496 km2). The
open lands of the plains and plateaux
“gaúchos” (native of “Rio Grande do
Sul”) and the “coxilhas”, of soft-wavy
relief, are colonised by field pioneer
species that form a vegetation type
of open savannah and steppe. There
are areas of seasonal forests and of
fields with grassy-woody covering. The
predominant physiognomy of these
fields is herbaceous, with many species
Plate 4. Typical Campos scene
of Poaceae, Asteraceae, Cyperaceae, (photo by Ilsi I. Boldrini)
Fabaceae, Rubiaceae, Apiaceae and
Verbenaceae (Ministério do Meio
Ambiente, 2000). Average height of the
continuous, sometimes dense, coverage
is 40 to 60 cm, sometimes 1 m. This
zone extends to Uruguay, Argentina
and Paraguay, totaling 500 000 km2
and feeding about 65 million domestic
ruminants. Cattle and horses were the
first domestic herbivores introduced by
Spanish settlers at the beginning of the
XVIIth. Considering the climatic and soil
conditions of this ecosystem, one would
expect that it should be covered by
5. Typical Araucarias scene
subtropical forests and not dominated by Plate
(photo by Ilsi I. Boldrini)
herbaceous formations. Probably these
extensive grass fields are remnants of
the semi-arid climate that had dominated the region during the climate changes of the Quaternary period.
Grazing is considered the main disturbance in keeping grasslands in a herbaceous pseudoclimax phase.
The Forest of “Araucárias” (see Plate 5)
The Brazilian Southern Plateau, at altitudes in excess of 500 m, is the area of distribution of the “pinheiro”
(pine tree) do “Paraná”, Araucaria angustifolia, that occupies about 2.6% of the national territory. In
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
17
these forests, representatives of the tropical and temperate flora of Brazil coexist, being dominated,
however, by the “pinheiro-do-Paraná”. The forests vary in arboreal density and height of the vegetation
and can be classified according to the soil aspects, as alluvial, along the rivers, sub-mountainous, which
no longer exist, and mountainous, the major one dominating the landscape. The open vegetation of
the grassy-woody fields occurs on shallow soils. Because of the high economic value of the pine tree
forests of “Araucária” they are subject to intense logging pressure. Only about 1,2% of the original area
remains and from these only 40 774 ha are being legally protected. Araucaria is nowadays considered in
extinction by Brazilian government and specific protection measures have been taken.
Coastal and insular ecosystems
The coastal ecosystems are generally associated with the Atlantic forest due to its proximity. In the sandy
soils of the coastal strips and dunes, sandbanks have developed. They vary in form from low-bushy
to arboreal. The “manguezais” (mangrove lands) and the saline fields of fluvial-marine origin have
developed on saline soils. In the sandy or muddy plains of the Continental Platform benthic ecosystems
occur. In the tidal zone the beaches and rocks, colonised by algae, stand out. The islands and reefs are
remarkable geographical features of the landscape.
Brazilian biodiversity
Brazil is the nation with the richest biodiversity in the world (Brazil, Convention on Biological Diversity).
At least 10% of the world’s amphibians and mammals (27% of the world’s primates) and 17% of all
bird species occur in Brazil. In terms of the Brazilian flora, there is 50 000 to 56 000 described species
of higher plants, or 22–24% of the world’s angiosperm species. By way of comparison, the estimate for
North America is 17 000 species, that for Europe 12 500, and 40 000 to 45 000 species are believed to
occur in Africa. Not only is the number of species high, but also the level of endemism.
The dimensions and complexity of Brazil’s biodiversity, both marine and terrestrial, may mean that
it will never be completely described. Officially five great biomes are recognised. The Amazonian
biome comprises 40% of the world’s tropical forest, being the largest remaining rain forest of the world.
“Cerrado” is the largest extent of savannah in a single country. Atlantic forest extends from south to
northeast covering an area of 1 million km2. This biome at present includes the Campos zone, covering
13 608 000 ha of natural pastures in Southern Brazil with more than 400 grass and 150 legume forage
species, which is not officially recognised as a biome. “Caatinga” is a vast semi-arid area of about
1 000 000 km2, contrasting with the “Pantanal” and its 140 000 km2 of wetlands. Coastal and marine
biomes add up to 3 500 000 km2 under Brazilian jurisdiction. There are numerous subsystems and
ecosystems within these biomes, each with unique characteristics, and the conservation of ecotones
between them is vital for the conservation of their biodiversity.
Recently, Brazil has made strong efforts towards the preservation of its biodiversity. Nowadays,
130 550 000 ha, or 15.37% of Brazil’s area have been legally declared as protected areas. Moreover,
200 000 records of plant germplasm are being conserved throughout the country (24% are native
species).
4. RUMINANT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
For all information on livestock numbers the reader is referred to Table 2 in section 1. Concerning
pastures, the last official census in 1996 indicated 177 700 472 ha as the total area comprised by natural
and cultivated pastures. In 1970, only 25 million ha were cultivated pastures, increasing to 100 million
ha in 1996. By contrast, natural pastures decreased from 100 to 75 million ha. Recent data indicate that
cultivated pastures in Brazil attained more than 130 million ha and natural pastures account for less than
70 million ha,
The main important cultivated pastures are grasses of African origin, which in general, show great
adaptation to the Brazilian climate and soils. Some species have become naturalised, since they were
18
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
first introduced through slave trading in the eighteenth Table 3. Cattle enterprises in Brazil
century. Grass was used as bedding for slaves during the trip Index
Average
to the new country.
Birth rate
60%
Until 1985, government policy provided substantial Mortality up to weaning
8%
incentives for expansion of agricultural and cattle-ranching Weaning rate
54%
frontiers. Between 1970 and 1985, financial incentives
Mortality post-weaning
4%
and subsidized credits totalled US$ 700 000 000, mostly
Age at first calving
48 months
involving deforestation for cattle ranching. This changed
Calving interval
21 months
some regions in a remarkable and quick way, the “Cerrado”
Slaughter age*
48 months
being the best example. Up until 1960 the “Cerrado” was
Slaughter rate*
17%
exploited extensively, with a few farmers using natural
Carcass weight
220 kg
pastures for cow-calf operations and many small farmers
53%
cultivating cassava and beans, mainly along river margins Carcass productivity
Stocking rate
0.9 head/ha/year
for subsistence. This changed drastically with government
* Showed great improvement recently. See text for
investments in highways and railways or direct agricultural further explanations
incentives. Monocultures of cash crops or cultivated grasses According to Zimmer & Euclides (1997)
spread to 40% of this system, and the population quadrupled.
Export products, such as soybean, have increased notably. Commercial, large-scale, mechanised and
capital-intensive farming has replaced small farmers, who have decreased by 1 000 000 in the last
decade (all regions concerned). Socially, the development of modern agriculture in the “Cerrado” has not
improved its already uneven social inequality, and also it has brought ecological costs such as landscape
fragmentation, loss of biodiversity, biological invasion, soil erosion, water pollution, changes in burning
regimes, land degradation and heavy use of chemicals.
Savannahs are responsible for almost 55% of the country’s beef and pioneer cattle ranching; they
provide good examples of a production system. Natural vegetation is removed and soil fertility is
sometimes improved by fertilizers. All these operations can cost around US$ 600/ha or more. Roads
and transport are still constraints in many situations. Alternative ways of land exploitation include
partial removal of vegetation, followed by burning, disking and direct seeding of pastures. Depending
on financial possibilities and local market needs, first operations can be crop production such as upland
rice to reduce land clearance and preparation costs and use the residual “natural fertility” incorporated
in the soil.
Farming systems in Brazil may be composed of cow-calf operations, store and finishing, with
farmers doing all phases or specialising. Beef and dairy enterprises in tropical pasture-based systems are
notoriously of low productivity. The low soil fertility, the over-exploitation of native grasslands, the low
genetic potential of the animals and the poor management of soil, pasture and animal components are all
arguments used to explain these “low-productivity systems”. Productivity indexes for cattle enterprises
show a lack of productivity (Table 3).
The long payback time on cattle production systems compared to other agricultural enterprises also
restrains technology diffusion and adoption. As a result, the financial policy is focusing investment on
crops other than pastures to allow farmers to have their investment back as soon as possible. Recently,
the beef cattle sector has experienced great positive changes. There has been a reduction of herd age to
slaughter from 4 to 3 years on average in the last ten years. But the birth rate is still 60% and calving
interval 21 months.
The average beef production in Brazil is 30 kg/ha/year, which can easily be increased by the adoption
of already available “conventional” technologies such as:
• Improvement in pasture management;
• Pasture subdivision;
• Recovery and maintenance of soil fertilization;
• Feed supplementation for critical periods;
• Reproductive control of animals;
• Animal genetic improvement;
• Sanitary control;
• Adjustment of the binomial genotype-environment.
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
19
Regarding national markets there are signs of a growing Table 4. Land tenure in cattle enterprises
potential for beef consumption in Brazil, even with a per
% of the
Farm size
% of farms
flock
(ha)
capita consumption of 38 kg/year it is important to stress
27.19
> 1 000
0.94
that at least 50% of the population have limited access to
38.77
100–1
000
9.35
meat due to poverty. In terms of international markets, a
24.0
10–100
34.06
vast potential for expansion can be foreseen with great
8.25
< 10
43.96
competitiveness due to the possibility of increasing
grazing production at substantially lower costs than (CNA, 2001)
Europe and USA.
For milk production, while the EU, USA and Argentina have 805, 105 and 22 thousand farms,
respectively, involved in dairy production, Brazil has 1.2 M farms involved in this activity, with 40%
having less than 50 ha, which is basically a family production system (Cordeiro, 2000).
In the late nineteen-eighties a survey indicated that, to collect 46 000 tonnes of milk (the amount to
feed 42% of “São Paulo” city for a month) it was necessary to travel 3 400 000 km monthly (Corsi et
al., 2001). This corresponds to a trip 85 times around the Earth monthly, and implies that only 13.5 kg
of milk was collected for each km travelled. These data reflected the overall low milk productivity as
well as the inefficient milk storage and collection system in the country, obliging the dairy industry to
collect milk on daily schedules. Extension support associated with logistical approaches in milk storage
and collection reduced the travelled distance by eleven times in “Minas Gerais” State, and nowadays,
1.96 tonnes of milk are collected in 40 066 km or 49 kg of milk/km travelled. It is possible to conclude
that the higher milk yield played a vital role in this process since the number of Brazilian dairy
farmers decreased in this period. Farmers assisted by trained professionals demonstrated significant
improvements in productivity levels and also reductions in production costs and consequently the system
of milk collection experienced significant improvements.
The increase in milk yield was a consequence of new approaches to several components of the
systems including improved techniques on animal feeding, reproduction, and health. Attention paid to
better data collection and on progress towards better farm management also played an important role in
the intensification process. The other side of this search for competitiveness and the “intensification”
process is the elimination of farmers who can’t attain the proposed scale and those who live in remote
areas. About 95% of livestock farmers are land owners. Fewer than 10% of farms hold two thirds of the
flock reflecting land concentration described earlier and the scale dependency of this kind of activity
(Table 4).
Beef production is developed in farms over 100 ha, which involve 82% of livestock. Milk production,
by contrast, has a large number of livestock in farms of less than 50 ha, which contribute 39% of national
production.
The present Forest Code demands that natural forests be maintained over 80% of private properties
in the Amazon and 20% of private rural properties elsewhere. This agriculture legislation is an
important “constraint” to farmers when about 5 500 000 ha of permanent pastures are seeded yearly for
pasture renovation, and 80 000 tonnes of seeds are required per year, 50% being Brachiaria brizantha
at present. 100 000 tonnes of seeds of Avena strigosa are sown annually, mainly in crop rotations by
direct drilling, and 8 000 tonnes of Lolium multiflorum and 15 000 tonnes of Pennisetum americanum
for grazing or crop rotations. Of the total area of pastures, 50% are native pastures, but cultivated
pastures increased from 30 million ha in 1970 to 105 million ha in 1995, increasing stocking rate from
0.5 to 0.9 head/ha.
5. THE PASTURE RESOURCE
Aiming to present the Brazilian pasture resource in a clearer and more organized way, and since Brazil
has continental dimensions, the description will be made according to different officially recognized
Brazilian biomes (see Plate 6).
20
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
Plate 6. Brazilian biomes
(IBGE, 2005)
Amazônia Forage profile
In the nineteen-sixties livestock production systems occupied 150 000 km2 of native pastures, composed
mainly of grasses, legumes and Cyperaceae in upland areas (cerrados and savana well drained from
Amapá and Roraima) and flooded areas (“Ilha de Marajó” and the Amazon river). Since then, up until
the nineties, the government encouraged the establishment of cultivated pastures, mainly Panicum
maximum, Hyparrhenia rufa, Brachiaria decumbens (see Plate 7) and Brachiaria humidicola. The
process of pasture improvement consisted of clearing and burning the forest followed by seeding
manually or by plane. In the last decade it was estimated that 62% of deforestation was due to cattle
enterprises, where 25 000 000 ha of cultivated pastures were established. Burning pastures at the
beginning of the growing season is a common practice. These enterprises are very extensive and beef
oriented. Apart from 19 000 000 cattle, the region contains more than a million buffalo.
Amazonian soils are characteristically very acid, with extremely low P levels and low CEC, besides
other mineral deficiencies (Peixoto et al., 1986). The high P fixing capacity of those soils contributes to
reducing opportunities for pasture development. Guineagrass and Hyparrhenia rufa are more responsive
to P than Brachiaria humidicola, and tropical legumes may be more tolerant than the grasses to lower
levels of P. Lowland grasslands are inundated periodically; species of Echinochloa, Hymenachne, Oryza,
Leersia, Luziola and Paspalum, cover poorer soils over huge areas. The problem of these areas is the
absence of adjacent land to graze the animals during the floods, so animals lose weight due to nutritional
and health constraints.
The upland grasslands, which represent around 60% of the region, display a similarity in botanical
composition, where Andropogon spp., Axonopus spp., Trachypogon spp. and Paspalum spp. set the
productivity and forage quality. Also important are the legumes of Pueraria spp., Centrosema spp. and
Dolichos spp. Arachis is recently increasing in importance in some areas. This ample substrate produces
poorer quality forage than the lowland grasslands. Within those grasslands nutrient cycling is the driving
force for their sustainability. Burning and the high grazing pressure are critical to attain it.
After clearing sections of the tropical rain forest, pasture development brought significant ecological
changes to the environment. Initially there was an increase in soil fertility due to the ashes. The rapid
establishment of guinea grass, Brachiaria humidicola and Andropogon gayanus pastures encouraged
intensive grazing and within three years signs of degradation were evident. But more leniently grazed
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
21
pastures could be maintained for more
than ten years. The P levels of these
soils imposed limitations on pasture
productivity, although some regional
authors (e.g., Dias Filho & Andrade,
2005) showed five to six fold (up to
25–36 tonnes DM ha -1) increases in
pasture response of the upland areas
when fertilized and sown to cultivated
species.
The level of phosphorous, and its
decrease following establishment, and
overgrazing are the most important
factors in pasture degradation, Plate 7. Cultivated grasslands in Amazonia: the successful
a problem verified in 61.5% of the Brachiaria x Pueraria mixtures
(photo by Carlos M. S Andrade)
Amazonian Occidental cultivated
pastures; according to local authors
(e.g., Dias Filho & Andrade, 2005) an area estimated at around 12 500 000 ha is affected. Spittle-bug and
disease are also important in contributing to pasture degradation, as well as the indiscriminate use of fire.
In site-specific Amazonian areas, there are success stories with the use of grass-legume mixtures.
Pueraria, the most impressive, accounts for more than 450 000 ha, being present in more than 30% of
pastures in the State of Acre.
Since 1995 the cultivated pasture area increased almost 70%, being estimated at almost 57 million
ha by 2003. Cattle stocks increased from 19.18 to 33.93 millions in the same period, illustrating the
concerns about ecosystem conservation. As this region presents currently the highest Brazilian livestock
expansion, and at the same time is characterized by low research investment (financial and human
resources), it is of great concern for the future (Dias-Filho & Andrade, 2005).
Cerrado forage profile
Natural pastures comprise 30 000 000 ha of Cerrados (see Figure 6). The main native grasses in
this region are Echinolaena inflexa and others such as Paniceae, species of Aristida, Arthropogon,
Axonopus, Paspalum, Schizachyrium,
Andropogon, Trachypogon etc. The
legumes are represented by Arachis,
Centrosema, Desmodium, Stylosanthes,
Macroptilium, Rhynchosia, Aeschynomene and others, which in combination
with grasses and other species make
up the natural pastures of the region.
Strongly supported at the beginning
of the nineteen-eighties by government action, cultivated pastures, which
accounted for 11 000 000 ha, increased
up to 29 000 000 ha in the nineteeneighties, and the area is nowadays
estimated to be around 60 000 000 ha,
reaching the ecological limit established for this ecosystem. After an
increase of 25% in the last 10 years
(2001–2005), the expansion rate of
cultivated pastures is attaining a plaFigure 6. Percent distribution of cultivated pasture area
teau, with a current tendency to stabiaccording to different municipalities in Cerrados
(from Macedo, 2005)
lize. Environmental requirements and
22
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
the increasing utilization of integrated
crop-livestock systems are contributing to this. From the total Brazilian
herd, Cerrados has 41%, or 72.3 million cattle.
In the last 25 years the green
revolution was initiated and most of
the “Cerrados” vegetation has been
replaced by agriculture and after one
or two years of growing crops, the
land was turned into sown tropical
pastures. Stocking rates were increased
several fold, from 0.3 to 1.0 head/ha
(Macedo, 1997). Brachiaria spp is the Plate 8. Cultivated grasslands in Cerrados: Brachiaria
most widespread genus, covering more (B. brizantha)
than 50 000 000 ha (see Plate 8) of the (photo by Sila C. Silva)
tropical savannah, representing 85% of
cultivated pastures. B. decumbens (15 million ha) and B. brizantha (30 million ha) are the most cultivated
pastures (Macedo, 2005). Panicum (see Plate 9) is the second most important genus, representing 12%
of cultivated pastures or 7.2 million ha. Pasture establishment and/or regeneration being integrated with
crops is now well adopted.
Low forage availability and quality in the dry season are the main limiting factors, lengthening the
productive cycle in cattle raising. Burning is common. Deferment is sometimes used and constitutes one
of the rare technologies employed in the most extensive areas. No more than 1-2% of cultivated pastures
are legume-based, the genus Stylosanthes being the most important. For most of the area, there was no
technological support to ranchers who stay away from agricultural administration, and livestock were
practically raised by nature.
Pasture degradation is considered the most important phenomenon facing the sustainability of
livestock production in Cerrados, with overstocking and the lack of maintenance fertilization considered
the main problems.
Mata Atlântica forage profile
The eastern portion comprises only 12% of Brazil but is responsible for almost 50% of all milk produced
and nearly 22.8% of the total Brazilian herd (36 000 000). Dairy enterprises are predominant (Assis,
1997). This is Brazil’s richest region and the most important agricultural and industrial centre, containing
70% of the population.
Most of the dairy production is based on pastures developed on cleared pasture-land, where Melinis
minutiflora predominated on the poorer soils of steep slopes, whose forage mass was of acceptable
nutritive value, but had a low carrying capacity. Pennisetum purpureum is another important forage in
dairy areas. Pastures based on Hyparrhenia rufa were persistent, but their productivity was also low. On
some of the remaining fertile soils, Panicum maximum had thriven and is still the main beef pasture for
the region. In the last 20 years the Brachiaria sp. took over and Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu is
being strongly recommended due to its resistance to spittle-bug disease (Deois flavopicta and Manarva
sp.). Cultivated pastures can provide conditions for high levels of animal productivity (25 to 30 000 kg
milk/ha per year and 1 000 to 1 600 kg LWG/ha per year in well fertilized soils, producing more than
30 000 kg DM during the growing season. Digitaria decumbens, Brachiaria decumbens and Brachiaria
humidicola are still important locally.
Like the “Cerrados”, eastern Brazil makes low usage of fertilizers for introduced pastures that are
grazed at high stocking rates, so the high grazing pressure causes a weakening, and these pastures
soon degenerate. Pasture degradation is an important limiting factor for farmers. Tropical legumes are
scarcely used, and the highly seasonal dry matter production does not balance forage quality with animal
needs. There is a feed shortage during the winter dry season (April/September), when supplementation
is sometimes used, particularly in dairy systems. Intensive management of highly productive cultivated
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
23
pastures is the most significant
technology, but is still weakly adopted.
Caatinga forage profile
The semi-arid region of NE Brazil
with a dry season of 8–9 month, and
an average rainfall of 400–600 mm/
year uses mixed livestock and involves
the use of the natural resources. These
areas have been used in an extractive
way since the eighteenth century and
the natural vegetation of mostly forage
species is being replaced by annual and
ephemeral ones. High grazing intensity Plate 9. Milk production on Panicum pastures
and periodic droughts are responsible (photo by Anibal de Moraes
for the desertification started in some
areas. The drought and the irregularity of precipitation are considered the basic problems of this
region, which has the highest concentration of Brazilian small ruminant stock (8.8 million goats and
8.01 million sheep) besides the 23.9 million cattle. Livestock operations represent food security, as in
drought years the productivity of agricultural products can decrease by more than 70%, whilst livestock
no more than 20%. The common farming system is agrosilvipastoral, where animals have an important
role in the distribution of nutrients (Cândido et al., 2005).
The main genus for the region are Mimosa, Caesalpinia, Dalbergia, Paspalum, Setaria, Cenchrus,
Aristida, Elionorus, Zornia, Stylosanthes, Centrosema and others. In the short rainy season the
herbaceous vegetation and green leaves of trees compose the forage mass. The Caatinga phytomass
annual mean production is around 4.0 tonnes/ha and dicotyledon herbaceous and grasses make up 80%
of the ruminant diet, but in the dry period the importance of woody species increases. With the onset of
the long dry season the leaves of the trees become dry and fall to the ground and are eaten by livestock.
By the middle of the dry season 62% of their diet is composed of dead leaves of woody vegetation and
up to 28% is from the standing herbaceous vegetation. Early in the rainy season, green leaves of trees
comprise 65% of the diet and the herbaceous vegetation the other 35%. These prolonged droughts have a
greater impact on the cattle population than on goats and sheep, since they are better adapted to adverse
conditions.
Due to the importance of trees in the diets of grazing animals, manipulation of the vegetation is very
important, and it is a common practice to pollard (cut the old branches of the trees and the top of the
trunk) to develop new sprouts and branches from where the goats get most of their feed. Thinning of
the stand is also done, and gradually they get trunk heights of less than 0.50 m from the ground, when
all leaves are within reach of the animals, increasing the foraging substrate. Under natural conditions of
the “Caatinga” vegetation, mixed grazing of cattle, sheep and goats is more productive. By thinning the
vegetation, cattle and goats are favoured. But when that canopy is manipulated, and the trunks are cut
close to the ground for new branching, cattle alone or cattle and sheep make better use of these natural
resources. In areas of higher rainfall the main cultivated grasses are Cenchrus ciliaris and Brachiaria
spp, Andropogon being less important. Important considered plants to face the semi-arid conditions of
Caatinga and feed animals are “palma forrageira” (Opuntia spp.), sugar cane, sorghum and manioc.
During prolonged drought periods, cattle are first supplemented, then sheep. Goats are supplemented
only at very critical conditions. Young and non productive animals are free-ranging the Caatinga to find
the remaining forages.
Pantanal forage profile
The Pantanal (see Plate 10) is a huge plain ranging from 16 to 210 S and 55 to 580 W covering
139 111 km2 (Allem and Valls, 1987). Its vegetational heterogeneity is known as the “Complex of
Pantanal”. Most farms are extensive cow-calf operations, with stocking rates as high as 3.6 ha/head.
Considering flooded areas this stocking rate can decrease by 50%. The total cattle herd is estimated at
24
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
around 3 800 000. This conservative
stocking rate, obligatory by nature,
accounts for ecosystem sustainability.
There are no large wild ungulates in
the Pantanal, which has been called
a sort of “herbivore emptiness” by
local authors. Commercial livestock
at conservative stocking rates are
believed to be positive for local
diversity. However this means a very
low productivity (18 kg LW/ha/year),
which in turn determines farm scale
(3.5% of farms correspond to 57% of
the Pantanal’s area). Natural vegetation Plate 10. Typical pantanal scene
is a mosaic depending on soil flood (photo by Sandra A. Santos)
characteristics (level, duration, origin,
etc.). Communities are known by the dominant vegetation (Canjiqueiral - Byrsonima intermedia
; Carandazal - Copernicia alba ; Paratudal - Tabebuia caraiba ; Gravatal - Bromelia balansae ;
Caronal - Elyonurus muticus and Pirizal - Cyperus giganteus and Scirpus validus). Other important
species are: Axonopus purpusii, Paspalum pantanalis, Paspalum plicatulum, Paspalum hydrophilum,
Paspalum carinatum, Paspalum lineare, Paspalum repens, Panicum stenodes, Panicum laxum, Leersia
hexandra, Aeschynomene fluminensis, Aeschynomene sensitiva, Camptosema paraguariense, Indigofera
lespedeziodes and others. Native pastures are predominant (99%), grasses being the most frequent group
(240 species) followed by legumes (212 species). Savannah and Cerrado are also important formations.
Brachiaria decumbens is one of the most important cultivated pastures and its use can be strategic during
flooded periods. Native pastures are used basically in two ways: cows remain all year in the same area
where flooding depth is not greater than 1 m, or graze flooded areas during the dry period. Paddocks
usually have huge surfaces (1 000 ha on average) making difficult the grazing management. The spacetemporal variability of herbage growth and the low carrying capacity of these pastures are considered
the main constraints to animal production. Eco-tourism is becoming important in this region, which
diversifies the economic activity.
Pampa (Campos) forage profile
Around 33o S up to 26oS, in southern Brazil, the low soil fertility, low soil pH, below critical P levels and
shallow soils account for the presence of only a few individuals of different species of legumes such as
Adesmia, Vicia, Lathyrus, Trifolium, Medicago, Desmodium, Rhynchosia, Aeschynomene, Arachis and
Vigna. This region holds an enormous plant diversity (about 400 grass and 150 leguminous species),
Among the grasses those in the genus Paspalum, Axonopus, Andropogon, Panicum, Setaria, Digitaria,
Schizachyrium, Bromus, Stipa are the most important, The whole of the region enjoys the same thermal
effects of the climate, encompassing a wide range of soil types and elevations, and where the moisture
is abundant the dominant tall grasses, such as Andropogon, Schizachyrium, Setaria, Bothriochloa,
Paspalum, Stipa, Aristida, and Axonopus restrain legume growth. As a consequence, the massive dry
matter (DM) production in the long warm season is of low quality (< 60% digestibility), the species
diversification and selective grazing throughout the seasons of the year makes that growth accumulate,
senesce and lose quality even more in winter and it often has to be burned before the following spring
season. This accumulation shades cool season grasses and prevents their growth, causing scarcity of
forage and quality feed in winter (see Plate 11). A common average daily growth rate for non fertilized
natural pasture is between 0–5 kg DM/ha in winter to 25–35 kg DM/ha in spring/summer, and total
annual forage production between 2 500 and 4 000 kg DM/ha.
The most important cultivated forages are annual winter grasses like Avena strigosa and Lolium
multiflorum (Nabinger et al., 2000), as well as legumes of the genera Trifolium, Lotus, Medicago and
others. Tropical pasture species are mainly annuals, such as Pennisetum americanum, and Sorghum spp.,
but perennials are becoming important (Panicum, Cynodon, Digitaria, Paspalum, other Pennisetum,
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
25
etc.). To a lesser extent, some
perennial winter grasses are cultivated
(Festuca, Phalaris, Dactylis, etc.).
Cultivated pastures comprise around
7 000 000 ha, while native pastures
attain 13 700 000 ha. So native pastures
feed most of the 26 200 000 cattle and
6 000 000 sheep. Cattle and sheep are
mainly raised in mixed-grazing on the
native pasture areas. In Southern Brazil
this natural ecosystem is under threat,
decreasing at a rate of 135 000 ha per
year (Nabinger et al., 2000), being
replaced mainly by cash crops and Plate 11. Campos natural pastures in winter
reforestation. It is the basic habitat (photo by Ilsi I. Boldrini)
for 3 000 vascular plants, 385 species
of birds and 90 terrestrial mammals. More than 50 forage species have been classified recently as in
danger of being extinguished by mismanagement of natural resources. Overgrazing and lack of nutrient
replacement are mainly responsible for the weak sustainability of the system.
Traditional pastoralism predominates in the use of these pastures, and feed is used mostly for
maintenance purposes. This region is the second most productive in Brazil in terms of volume of milk.
Integrated crop-animal production systems are becoming an interesting option mainly in summer crop
areas with soybean, maize or rice.
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FODDER
RESOURCES
(Also see Maraschin, 2001 for this topic)
Greater use of legumes
Tropical America is the centre of diversity for many important tropical forage legumes, but the
evaluations were limited to a few species, marginally adapted to the edaphic conditions prevailing in
major livestock areas of the region. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the low use of forage legumes
in Brazilian pastures. Other factors, which certainly contribute, are the critical stocking rate and the lack
of fertilization.
In many regions of Brazil there are ample opportunities to use forage legumes, since they are endemic
to the area. Tropical legumes are also important in restoring lands degraded by imprudent cropping or
grazing. These pastures, although contributing, are often unstable, and the management necessary to
maintain an adequate proportion of legume is still little understood. The efforts devoted to selecting
grass and legume germplasm adapted to the acid soils found in important ecosystems such as savannahs
and humid tropical forests, revealed that S. capitata and S. guyanensis are suitable for the savannahs
and the humid tropical rain forest, and Arachis pintoi is compatible with aggressive and stoloniferous
grasses and is very persistent under heavy grazing. Pueraria phaseoloides and Stylosanthes capitata
which animals select in the dry season also show potential for the tropical rain forest environment.
Development of technologies for local seed production to supply legume based forage systems was
important. Evaluations under grazing yielded results from 200–400 kg LW/ha in locations with dryseason stress, and up to 500–600 kg LW/ha in areas with no dry-season stress.
For other marginal areas, in the two storey vegetation of herbaceous plants and Acacia caven, the
deciduous foliage of the trees replenished the soil minerals removed by the grazed herbaceous plants.
Even with the lush growth of the trees, the herbs under that shading were luxuriant relative to those under
26
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
full sunlight. The trees got most of the water they need from deeper soil layers, allowing more for the
herbaceous vegetation that explores the upper layers of the soil. Lots of similarities are also found in the
northeast within the “Caatinga” vegetation.
The spectacular increase in individual animal performance when grazing legume-based cultivated
pastures compared with native savannah grassland deserves mention. It is hoped that legumes will
contribute with low-cost nitrogen to the associated grass. This characteristic and the tolerance to low
fertility and acid soils are always major themes of research and the first objectives pursued. The problem
is that Brazilian grazing history with large herbivores is short and these legumes have, in general, very
limited adaptations to tolerate heavy grazing, having more specialised escape mechanisms; this deserves
more attention by forage breeders.
Managing grazing intensities
Grazing at optimum carrying capacity is a compromise between optimising intake and individual animal
production with animal production per hectare, since intake decreases when available herbage per animal
decreases. When herbage allowance does not limit animal intake, animals with high yield potential can
express their growth to near maximum, without supplementation, thus lowering production costs.
It has long been known that lower grazing pressure, or high herbage allowance, allows very high
levels of animal performance from either natural or cultivated tropical pastures. Values range for
natural pastures: 0.69–1.0 kg/an/day and for cultivated tropical pastures: 1.5–1.27 kg/an/day. This
should encourage grazing management practices that use lighter grazing intensities on native or tropical
cultivated pastures, but unfortunately this is not the case in commercial situations.
Managing grazing intensities on native pastures
The natural grasslands of southern Brazil are the main feed resource for an equivalent of 15 000 000 AU.
Despite the large area occupied by natural grasslands and its importance to animal production in Brazil,
there is a paucity of research about the ecosystem and its dynamics. Vegetation in these areas is highly
complex and characterized by a huge diversity, with differences in structure, quality and metabolic
pathway (C3 and C4). In such an environment, tufted grasses increase their abundance according to
grazing pressure and can comprise more than 50% of ground cover at low grazing intensities, and less
than 5% at high grazing intensities. Inter-tussock vegetation cover decreases from 100 to 67% when
grazing pressure increases from 8.8 to 25 kg LW/kg DM per day, although the actual grazing intensity
at the inter-tussock vegetation remains similar (Silva & Carvalho, 2005).
The ranching philosophy of pasture utilization predominates in the use of natural pastures despite
the strong support from research results. Grazing efficiencies greater than 50% occur at daily herbage
allowance levels from 13 to 18 kg DM 100 kg LW-1 with peak efficiencies occurring from 6 to 9 kg DM
100 kg LW-1. Daily herbage allowance values below 20 kg AU -1 allow for 4.4 kg DM per 100 kg LW
and restricted the intake of a 454 kg mature cow.
It has also been suggested that deferring grazing to recover or rejuvenate these native pastures
and to increase the biomass productivity and the frequency of the desirable species for the site,
would be beneficial. Reduction in stocking rate and sowing cultivated species is an alternative. By
reducing stocking rate one slows down the rate of degradation but not the trend toward degradation,
since the grazing animals will continue to overgraze the preferred species selectively within plant
communities. This is an ever present phenomenon, and can be a critical one, where pasture biodiversity
is not counterbalanced by different species of grazing animals. On the other hand, the introduction of
cultivated species is feasible once there are provisions against the limiting factors that might jeopardise
the new pasture, especially fertilization.
The distinct pasture canopies can range from prostrate forms of growth under heavier grazing
pressures, to rank vegetation under more lenient management. Tufted grasses may represent a forage
resource depending on the availability of preferred species, and so the concept of “forage” itself may be
quite variable, and represents an additional challenge to the characterization of the grazing environment
and to pasture utilization. An accumulation rate up to 16.3 kg DM/ha/day through the season for natural
pastures maintained at an optimum stocking rate was determined to be at a herbage allowance of 13.5%
LW per day, which was equivalent to maintaining the herbage mass at a level of 1 400–1 500 kg DM/
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
27
ha. The conversion efficiency of this ecosystem in capturing radiation energy from sunlight to transform
it into primary production ranges from 0.20% for high grazing pressures to 0.36% at appropriate ones,
which represented an 80% increase in system efficiency. This demonstrates the important improvements
that can be made simply by managing this pasture ecosystem at the correct grazing intensity. These
values and relationships mean that the productivity of these grasslands can be 100% increased at a cost
of harvesting forage by the grazing animal, with no other energy input than thought.
Carvalho (unpublished) summarises the main current knowledge about natural pasture management
in southern Brazil, as follows:
i) natural pastures have enormous plant diversity (400 grasses and 150 legumes);
ii) C4 grasses predominate and are responsible for the strong seasonal variations in productivity
and forage quality;
iii) Moderate grazing intensities allow light interception and yield to reach their potential (herbage mass about 14 000 kg dry matter/ha);
iv) Moderate grazing intensities allow secondary production to reach its potential (daily herbage
allowance of 12 to 13 kg dry matter/ 100 kg LW);
v) Compared to the mean current productivity of the natural pastures in Southern Brazil, the use
of adequate grazing intensities may triplicate animal production. It may reach 700 kg LW/day
when adequate grazing intensities are associated with fertilization;
vi) Plant diversity is lower in the extremes of grazing intensities, therefore, moderate intensities
promote biodiversity;
vii) This ecosystem is highly resilient;
viii) Higher grazing intensities lead to vegetation with prostrate types of plants, with a predominance of escape mechanisms to grazing. On moderate grazing intensities we can see a mixture of bushes, tussock grasses and prostrate species with a diversity of escape and tolerance
mechanisms;
xi) High grazing intensities decrease organic matter, reduce the water infiltration rate, reduce soil
cover, and reduce the availability of nutrients;
x) Native pastures respond positively to the removal of limiting factors, especially to fertilization. Moreover under such conditions C3 grasses and legumes may be introduced by overseeding on the natural pasture, to fill the forage gap in winter;
xi) Deferment is necessary for correct management;
xii) Use of fire reduces the system productivity and compromises the chemical and physical conditions of the soil;
xiii) The grazing method has little effect on animal production. Grazing intensity is the determinant
variable;
Managing grazing intensities on cultivated pastures
In all environments it is necessary to find the best compromise in combining three factors: plant growth,
plant utilisation and animal performance, to reach the maximum efficiency taking into account the
production costs.
It is recognised that improved pastures have been shown to greatly increase rates of animal
production. For example, very interesting was the assessment concerning Cenchrus ciliaris, introduced
into the native pastures of the dry-NE Brazil, promoting a two fold increase in the LWG/ha , but with no
changes in the average daily gain per animal (ADG/an).
When dealing with productivity the entire system has to be considered, with both seasonal and annual
variations included. There is evidence that an increase in ADG an-1 under grazing is the best way to
reduce animal production costs, showing that animals per hectare express the rate of stocking that allows
for the optimum individual animal performance.
The results from central Brazil and the “Cerrados” indicate that persistency of cultivated pastures
depends on initial soil fertility and lenient grazing management. Lenient grazing is important, but
not enough for pasture sustainability. The decline in soil fertility status is the starting point of pasture
degradation. The first symptom observed is the reduction in carrying capacity under equivalent forage
allowance; the pasture regrowth does not acquire its previous status after resting; and the reduction in
28
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
forage mass and quality reduces ADG/an.- Bare spots become visible in the pasture, weeds invade and
some native species return. So, judicious monitoring of carrying capacity would indicate the beginning
of the degradation process. When detected early it may cost 100 US$/ha to recover the area, while later
detection raises costs to 200US$/ha. Reducing the stocking rate helps to maintain animal performance
but does not overcome the trend in pasture degradation.
Another choice that is acquiring importance is the integration of crop and grassland agriculture within
a complete system of land use and farm productivity. The annual crops will generate financial resources
for improving the soil fertility level, thus reducing the costs of pasture establishment. Consistent results
are showing new pastures with increased pasture potential for the region, where fertilized Panicum
pastures are producing 740 kg LW/ha/year, while the Brachiaria sp. reach a ceiling yield at 600 kg
LW/ha/year. These differences come from the higher ADG/an and higher number of steers carried
by the Panicum, compared to Brachiaria pastures. For enterprises adopting low levels of technology,
Brachiaria is the option, while for those adopting the existing high level of technology, Panicum
pastures are recommended.
New experimental results with Brachiaria cultivars showed different rates of leaf growth for the
wet and the dry seasons. Some ecotypes displayed higher leaf DM yield in the dry season while others
performed better for the wet season, and were recommended to be tested for animal gains. They have
already shown high pasture potential. Hopes rest on the animal potential of those new varieties.
The promotion of grazing based on the green leaf lamina dry matter (GLLDM), contributes to our
knowledge and understanding of what happens in the pasture profile, to evaluate pasture dynamics and
to watching the shaping up of the silhouette of a steer gaining weight and being finished on pasture under
grazing. At low levels of GLLDM the animals graze more frequently, promote tiller density as well as
invasion of other plant species, and adversely affect root mass, plant diameter, internode length, tiller
weight, rate of accumulation of GLLDM and total GLLDM yield. It seems that heavy grazing does not
help the pasture.
With clearly defined levels of pasture GLLDM management being applied to Mott dwarf elephant
grass, studies reveal that a sustainable optimum ADG of 1.043 kg/an at a herbage allowance of 10.5%
LW/day of GLLDM yielding 1 188 kg LWG/ha can finish a slaughter steer within 210 days of grazing,
under continuous stocking.
Based on the acquired knowledge in conducting grazing experiments to evaluate herbage allowance
and animal and pasture responses, it is suggested that at least 1 500–2 000 kg/ha of live green leaf lamina
DM of the forage mass is required from which the grazing animals will get their diet.
Sward targets: a recent orientation for grassland management (see Silva & Carvalho,
2005)
The tropical/sub-tropical environment is unique, requiring creative and site-specific solutions to
overcome production constraints in order to realise its potential. The range of plant species, their varying
size, morphology and physiology highlight the need to review some of the concepts and general views
relating to animal performance from these pastures. Recent experimental work on pasture ecophysiology
and grazing ecology in Brazil has been conceived under the conviction that control, monitoring and
manipulation of sward state is an important feature of grazing management. This is very different from
the traditional and simplistic view of production, in which control of the grazing process is made by
means of fixed stocking rates, herbage allowances, grazing intervals and grazing method and allows for
significant variation in sward state.
New work is in progress in Brazil for the main forage resources (e.g., Brachiaria, Panicum, Cynodon,
Pennisetum, etc.) about how sward structure is built and how animals capture forage from these
structures. As a consequence of this new knowledge, and aiming to optimize pasture production (i.e.
light interception) and animal intake (i.e. animal performance), some very recent sward guidelines are
being recommended, some of which are illustrated below:
i) In continuous stocking, B. brizantha should be managed between 20–40 cm height during the
growing period, and around 15 cm just before and during winter. When using rotational grazing,
a pre-grazing sward height of 25 cm and residual herbage height about 10–15 cm are desirable,
according to different categories and objectives;
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
29
ii) P. maximum cv. Mombaça, in rotational grazing should be managed with a pre-grazing sward
height of 90 cm while for P. maximum cv. Tanzânia the target is 70 cm for pre-grazing sward
height. For both cultivars the recommended residual herbage height is 30–50 cm, according to
different categories and objectives;
iii) Cynodon cultivars when used in continuous stocking, should be managed between 10 and 20 cm
height;
iv) Pennisetum glaucum when used in continuous stocking, should be managed around 30 cm
height;
v) Annual temperate pastures, such as Lolium multiflorum and Avena strigosa when used in continuous stocking, should be managed around 15 and 25 cm height;
vi) Natural pastures used in continuous stocking maximize animal intake when inter-tussok areas
are managed around 13 cm height;
Recent evidence generated under these conditions demonstrates that well fertilized and managed
tropical/sub-tropical forage species can produce herbage of sufficiently high quality to ensure satisfactory
animal performance throughout the year. Low quality herbage during the winter period can be a result
of inefficient harvest during previous favourable growing seasons and is not necessarily an intrinsic
characteristic of the herbage produced. Additionally, non-nutritional factors (e.g., sward structure) have
a greater relative importance than nutritional factors regulating herbage intake of grazing animals.
Animal production systems for tropical/sub-tropical pastures have an additional and significant
constraint, i.e. the pronounced seasonality of herbage production. This generates variation in the feed
supply-demand balance of the system between and within seasons of the year, which must be managed
if sward control is to be achieved effectively. Management practices have direct and indirect impacts
on sward control, structure and animal performance that need to be known in order to allow for the
correct planning and decision making process on a farm scale. Consequently, the current research and
the management orientation for tropical/sub-tropical grasslands are being based on the careful control
and planning of sward state.
Pasture fertilization
It is well documented and recognized that the levels of available P in the soils are extremely low. The use
of fertilizers to increase DM and quality of native pasture production has taken too long to be accepted
by those involved with livestock production; cultivated pastures were fertilized at establishment, but not
for maintenance.
In a classical experiment done in southern Brazil, phosphorous was applied broadcast in a natural
pasture (160 kg/ha), and continuous versus rotational grazing was under evaluation. After 11 years
of grazing, there was a 10% increase in livestock production from rotational grazing compared with
continuous stocking. However, the outstanding response was to P fertilization, which showed an increase
in productivity of around 4.95 kg LWG/ha/kg of applied P. After 11 years the fertilized natural pasture
was producing 70% more than the unfertilized natural pasture. No doubt, there was a very lasting and
contributing effect of the P application.
To illustrate the possibility of changing botanical composition by fertilizers and altering the quality
status of pastures, a trial has shown that Desmodium incanum increases from 3.3% up to 24.4% in a
pasture as a result of high phosphorus applications in southern Brazil. With regard to nitrogen, when a
natural grass such as Paspalum notatum is fertilized and water doesn’t limit growth, pasture production
reaches 12.0 tonnes DM/ha, and places doubt on the necessity for cultivated pastures. This information
has had a considerable impact on the southern research programmes resulting in the promotion of native
pasture fertilization at medium levels for pasture sustainability.
Maintenance of soil nutrient status is a key variable in pasture sustainability. There are sharp residual
effects of P fertilization on forage DM production of subtropical pasture mixtures, with increased legume
contribution as the P levels are increased. However, the P levels in the soil are gradually being reduced
due to extraction by plants when there is no P replacement, and after five years phosphorous can be
reduced to 1/5 of what it was at the beginning.
Annual fertilization of a mixture of guinea grass, Siratro, Glycine wightii and Stylosanthes guianensis
on the other hand, kept that pasture productive for more than ten years. The annual application of
30
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
20 kg/ha of P helped in maintaining pasture production while the application of 40 kg/ha of P increased the
pasture production by 30%, whereas under no fertilization production dropped at a rate of 15% annually.
Panicum spp. were also identified as responsive to fertile soils, where high levels of P were applied,
while Stylosanthes capitata, Stylosanthes guianensis and Zornia spp. with Brachiaria humidicola,
Hyparrhenia rufa and Andropogon gayanus were identified as species with good performance on soils
with low P supply. Researchers thus emphasized the development of a philosophy of pasture productivity
to take advantage of fertilizer use and applied knowledge in pasture management all over the country to
benefit from the improvement brought about by the fertilizer applications.
In fact, farmers do not frequently adopt fertilizer use. A 1997 survey revealed that only 663 000 tonnes
of NPK fertilizers were annually applied to 90 000 000 ha of introduced pastures in Brazil, i.e. about
7.4 kg of NPK fertilizer/ha of pasture per year. Results from grazing trials conducted in eastern and
central Brazil, in the “Cerrados” revealed that fertilization increased yield of cultivated pastures from
150 to 400 kg/ha, irrespective of the final animal product. The search for cheap sources of nitrogen is
suggested to be of paramount importance to supply pasture ecosystems and obtain livestock production
at low cost.
The efficiency of P fertilization is 4.6 kg LW ha/kg of applied P, while for N fertilization it is 1.6
to 2.0 kg LWG ha/kg of applied N (reported for tropical pastures in central Brazil). The magnitude of
responses is associated with the stocking rate, experiencing sharp declines in LWG/ha as the stocking
rate is increased.
Supplements (see Corsi et al., 2001)
The high herbage accumulation rate in tropical grasses favours stockpiling practices. On the other hand,
the use of stockpiling practice limits animal productivity for quantity and quality reasons. Long regrowth
periods without grazing (or cutting) are prone to excessive herbage losses and in extreme cases the
forage damps-off. It is also well established that long regrowth periods are deleterious to forage quality
given the reductions on the potential pasture intake due to the nutritive value of the forage.
To better utilize the standing low quality forage some farmers are feeding protein supplements (0.1%
of animal live weight) containing ionophores to correct nutritional deficiencies in winter (dry and cold).
While some nutrients are indeed corrected, results seem to indicate live weight gain is primarily additive
rather than the supplement.
Grazing animals can also benefit from feeding supplements during the summer/autumn period.
Supplementation at that time of the year aims to improve individual performance as well as the output
of animal products per unit area. In dairy enterprises this strategy has been widely used and it seems that
a similar average response of 1.4 kg of milk/kg of concentrate supplementation might be expected for
lactating cows on temperate and tropical grasses.
For beef cattle better responses to concentrate (and possibly degradable fibre) supplement feeding
seem to occur in late summer/autumn compared to the beginning of the grazing season. At this time
supplemented animals grazing tropical grasses are expected to show live weight gains above 1 kg/head/
day, though feed conversion is a function of the supplement type. Information regarding the synchronism
between carbohydrate and protein fractions in the rumen and, consequently, the substitution of pasture
DM for concentrate DM, and the high concentrate prices in tropical regions seem to be the most limiting
factors restraining the adoption of supplementation programmes on the best-managed farms.
During the (wet and warm) summer, tropical pastures can support high stocking rates, peaking up
to 15 AU/ha. This carrying capacity is much lower during winter, averaging 10 to 40% of summer
values. Therefore the intensification of tropical pasture-based systems in summer should consider the
use of conserved forages or by-products in winter to guarantee the balance between food supply and
demand during the whole year. Options such as silage (maize, sorghum or perennial tropical grasses),
hay (perennial tropical grasses), and several by-products (sugarcane, citrus, brewer’s grain, etc.) are
available.
Feedlots during the winter are also a possibility to allow high carrying capacities on tropical grass
pastures in summer. However, feedlots are economically questionable when practised on a small scale,
and with high grain prices and low availability of by-products.
Recently, irrigated tropical pastures have been used to enhance carrying capacity for both beef and
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
31
dairy enterprises. Production costs have been reported of about US$ 0.9/kg carcass weight in irrigated
tropical pastures at the same time as selling prices were US$ 1.36/kg carcass weight. Cost analysis
studies indicate that adoption of irrigated tropical pasture depends on production costs in the dry pasture
system, overall production costs and selling price and the increase in productivity in the irrigated system.
Below are presented different views from research and extension, which give an idea of future
possible scenarios for cattle production systems and their potential in Brazil. The following conclusion
were drawn by Corsi et al. (2001):
1. Animal production from tropical pasture-based systems has a high plant and animal productivity
potential when soil fertility is adequate (e.g., fertilizers are used) and more than 25 000 kg milk/
ha/year and 900 kg liveweight gain/ha/year can be obtained.
2. Technology transfer in these systems is constrained because animals and land are used as a capital
reserve and animal products (milk and meat) in these situations are by-products rather than products. Economic policies toward cereal/legumes crops instead of high-cost cattle enterprises also
constrain uptake of technology. This frequently makes smallholder livestock farmers unable to
adopt the necessary technology to efficiently and intensively manage beef and dairy enterprises.
On the other hand, capitalized farmers and companies having already reasonable economic outputs
in extensive systems have no interest to adopt more intensive ones.
3. Stockpiling practices and grass-legume mixtures are pasture management options when stocking
rates are low, generally up to 1.2–2.0 AU/ha/year. Stocking rates above this limit are necessary to
efficiently use the high herbage growth rate potential of tropical pastures. Higher stocking rates
during the summer should consider the use of rotational grazing and the need to plan winter feeding, e.g. the utilization of conserved forages, feedlots, or irrigated tropical pastures.
4. Tropical grass management (mainly for tussock-forming grasses) seems to have different characteristics compared to temperate pasture management. As herbage accumulation rates in tropical
species increase above 100 days, tropical pasture management should be oriented toward forage
quality and/or pasture structure.
5. The supplementation of grazing animals in summer/autumn periods in tropical environments can
be a valuable tool to increase the individual animal performance and the overall pasture output.
6. The use of fertilizers seems to be a pre-requisite to sustain high pasture productivity. Practices that
increase the pasture productivity while maintaining the environment quality should be emphasized.
With regard to pastures, according to Zimmer and Euclides (1997) it is necessary to develop better
quality forages, which can provide a better animal performance in favourable growth periods as well
as in drought. Special emphasis should be given to increase production in the rainy season when the
conditions are better, improving animal performance in this way, where the available tropical pasture
at present does not fulfil the genetic potential for animal gain. In dry periods the nutritional needs of
some animal categories should be met using alternatives for feed supplementation, since in this period
forages do not meet animal needs. It is essential that genetic improvement of forages focus on the search
of legumes for animal diet improvement and, particularly, for biological nitrogen fixation. Biological N
fixation is important for sustainability and for the reduction of possible environmental damage.
According to the National Agriculture Confederation [see CNA] the main demands from the beef
cattle enterprise are:
Technological demands
(a) Genetics: selection for desirable characteristics, like precocity and biological efficiency, particularly concerning live weight and carcass; studies about volume and quantity of meat produced;
production of steers with monounsaturated fat; obtaining animals with greater live weight gain
in less time.
(b) Nutritional management: production costs reduction by low-cost ratios; reduce problems concerning loss of live weight on drought periods.
(c) Production of younger steers: comparative studies (younger animals/ordinary animals, carcass
output, flavour, tenderness, juiciness and acceptability by consumers.
(d) Characterisation of buffalo meat “in natura”: sensorial analyses by sex and animal age, concerning tenderness, flavour, visual quality, etc., and its acceptability by consumers; studies on meat
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
32
stability during storage.
(e) Behaviour of diseases at farm level and necessity for its effective control: research efforts based
on actual data.
Non-technological demands
(a) Evaluation of generated products: market research to better know the final consumers.
(b) Definition of consumers’ health objectives.
(c) Production of younger steers: quantitative analysis to quantify market and classical economic
analysis.
(d) Animal husbandry: diagnostics of reproduction.
(e) Re-dimensioning of taxes in all components of the meat chain.
(f) Improvement of the laboratories of quality control: inputs and products.
(g) Increase relationship and co-ordination along the chain.
(h) Increase efficiency of international affairs to negotiate better agreements to the meat chain.
7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND
PERSONNEL
Several organizations, mainly public, are involved in agricultural research and development. On a
national scale, Federal Universities, EMBRAPA and EMATER are important institutions. At State level,
we should consider the efforts of public Universities and/or Research Institutes financed by each state.
Private Universities are not consolidated concerning research. Investment in scientific and technological
research arising directly from Government or from research foundations can be assumed to amount to
some 80% of the total.
The main overall research efforts are being made in the following areas: plant and animal breeding
with the main focus on productivity and capacity to cope with harsh environments; technologies to
rehabilitate degraded areas; grazing management focusing on intensive systems, animal nutrition
focusing on feed-lot systems.
Private enterprises have recently made efforts, notably on animal genetics and plant breeding. Some
of them do development work and assist farmers as a market strategy.
Some key persons and their research areas are presented (this list is not intended to be exhaustive nor
definitive and it should be viewed only as a way to start contacts in the following areas):
Topics
Grassland management
Names
Moacir Corsi
e-mail address
[email protected]
Rangeland management
Gerzy E. Maraschin
[email protected]
Tree-pasture association systems
João Carlos de Saibro
[email protected]
Temperate forage breeding
Miguel Dall’Agnol
[email protected]
Tropical forage breeding
Cacilda Borges do Valle
[email protected]
Forage collection and characterization José F. M. Valls
[email protected]
Forage cytogenetics
Maria T. Schifino-Wittmann [email protected]
Native forage species flora
Ilsi I. Boldrini
[email protected]
Pasture reclamation
Moacyr B. Dias Filho
[email protected]
Forage conservation
Clóves C. Jobim
[email protected]
Pasture utilization
Sila C. da Silva
[email protected]
Ecophysiology of grasslands
Carlos Nabinger
[email protected]
Pasture fertilization
Francisco A. Monteiro
[email protected]
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
33
Forage quality
Harold O. Patiño
[email protected]
Tropical pasture seed production
Ronaldo P. de Andrade
[email protected]
Temperate pasture seed production
Lúcia B. Franke
[email protected]
Forage seedbanks
Renato B. de Medeiros
[email protected]
Forages in cropping systems
(Cerrados)
Manuel C. M. Macedo
[email protected]
Forages in cropping systems
(Southern Brazil)
Anibal de Moraes
[email protected]
Forages in dairy cattle systems
Duarte Vilela
[email protected]
Forages in beef cattle systems
Ademir H. Zimmer
[email protected]
Forages in small ruminant systems
César H. E. C. Poli
[email protected]
Forages in horse systems
João R. Dittrich
[email protected]
Amazonian forage system
Antônio P. de Souza
[email protected]
Cerrados forage system
Valéria P. Euclides
[email protected]
Caatinga forage system
Magno J. D. Cândido
[email protected]
Pantanal forage system
Sandra Aparecida Santos
[email protected]
Mata Atlântica forage system
(northern part)
Domício Nascimento Jr.
[email protected]
Mata Atlântica forage system
(southern part)
Ricardo A. Reis
[email protected]
Pampa forage system
Aino V. A. Jacques
[email protected]
Key institutions
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária: www.embrapa.br
EMATER : www.emater.tche.br/
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul: www.ufrgs.br
Universidade Federal de Viçosa: www.ufv.br
Universidade Federal de Lavras: www.ufla.br
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro: www.ufrrj.br
Universidade de Brasília: www.unb.br
Universidade de São Paulo: www.usp.br
Universidade Estadual Paulista: www.unesp.br
Universidade Estadual de Maringá: www.uem.br
Instituto de Zootecnia: www.iz.sp.gov.br
Fundação Estadual de Pesquisa Agropecuária: www.fepagro.rs.gov.br
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia : www.sbz.org.br
Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico. www.cnpq.br
Coordenadoria de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior:www.capes.gov.br
34
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
8. REFERENCES
Allem, A.C., Valls, J.F.M. 1987. Recursos forrageiros nativos do Pantanal Mato-grossense. Embrapa, 339 p.
Andrade, R. P., Barcellos, A. O., Rocha, C.M.C. 1995. Pastagens nos Ecossistemas Brasileiros: Pesquisas
para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. In: XXXII Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia,
Brasil, Proceedings, 200 p.
Assis, A.G.1997. Milk production under grazing in Brazil. In: International Symposium on Animal Production
under Grazing, Viçosa, Proceedings, p.31–59.
Atlas Climatológico do Brasil. 1969. Ministério da Agricultura, Rio de Janeiro. 100 p.
Brazil. First National Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.biodiv.org
Cândido, M.J.D., Araújo, G.G.L., Cavalcante, M.A.B. 2005. Pastagens no ecossistema semi-árido
brasileiro: atualização e perspectivas futuras. In: Simpósio sobre pastagens nos ecossistemas brasileiros:
alternativas viáveis visando a sustentabilidade dos ecossistemas de produção de ruminantes nos diferentes
ecossistemas, 2005, Goiânia, Proceedings, CD-Rom.
Confederação Nacional da Agricultura. http://www.cna.org.br/cna/index.wsp
Cordeiro, A. 2000. Sustainable Agriculture in the Global Age: Lessons from Brazilian Agriculture. Swedish
Society for Nature Conservation - Report. 28p.
Corsi, M., Martha Jr., G.B., Nascimento Jr., D., Balsalobre, M.A.A. 2001. Impact of grazing management
on productivity of tropical grasslands. In: XIX International Grassland Congress, Brazil, Proceedings,
p.801–805.
Dias-Filho, M.B., Andrade, C.M.S. 2005. Pastagens no ecossistema trópico úmido. In: Simpósio sobre
pastagens nos ecossistemas brasileiros: alternativas viáveis visando a sustentabilidade dos ecossistemas
de produção de ruminantes nos diferentes ecossistemas, 2005, Goiânia, Proceedings, CD-Rom.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. http://www1.ibge.gov.br/
Joly, C.A., Aidar, M.P.M., Kilnk, C.A., McGrath, D.G., Moreira, A.G., Moutinho, P., Nepstad,
D.G., Oliveira, A.A., Pott, A., Rodal, M.J.N., Sampaio, E.V.S.B. 1999. Evolution of the Brazilian
phytogeography classification systems: implications for biodiversity conservation. Ciência e Cultura, v.51,
p. 331–348.
Macedo, M.C. 1997. Sustainability of pasture production in the savannahs of tropical America. In: XVIII
International Grassland Congress, Canada, Proceedings, p.5–15.
Macedo, M.C. 2005. Pastagens no ecossistema Cerrados: evolução das pesquisas para o desenvolvimento
sustentável. In: Simpósio sobre pastagens nos ecossistemas brasileiros: alternativas viáveis visando a
sustentabilidade dos ecossistemas de produção de ruminantes nos diferentes ecossistemas, 2005, Goiânia,
Proceedings, CD-Rom.
Maraschin, G.E. 2001. Production potential of South American grasslands. In: XIX International Grassland
Congress, Brazil, Proceedings, p.5-15.
Maraschin, G. E., Jacques, A.V.A. 1993. Grassland opportunities in the subtropical region of SouthAmerica. In: XVII International Grassland Congress, NZ-Australia, Proceedings, p.2014-2015.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2000. Avaliação e ações prioritárias para a conservação da biodiversidade
da Mata Atlântica e Campos Sulinos. 40p.
Nabinger, C., Moraes, A., Maraschin, G. 2000. Campos in Southern Brazil. In: Grassland Ecophysiology
and Grazing Ecology. CABI. p.355–376.
Pallarés, O.R., Berretta, E., Maraschin, G.E. 2005. The South American Campos ecosystem. In: Suttie,
J.M., Reynolds, S.G., Batello, C. Grasslands of the world, FAO, p.171–220.
Peixoto, A.M., Moura, J. C., Faria, V.P. 1986. Pastagens na Amazônia. In: Congresso Brasileiro de
Pastagens, Piracicaba, Proceedings, 99 p.
Peixoto, A.M., Moura, J. C., Faria, V.P. 1986. Simpósio sobre Manejo da Pastagem. In: Anais do Congresso
Brasileiro de Pastagens, Piracicaba, Proceedings, 542 p.
Santos, S.A., Crispim, S.M.A., Comastri Filho, J.A. 2005. Pastagens no ecossistema Pantanal: manejo,
conservação e monitoramento. In: Simpósio sobre pastagens nos ecossistemas brasileiros: alternativas
viáveis visando a sustentabilidade dos ecossistemas de produção de ruminantes nos diferentes ecossistemas,
Goiânia, Proceedings, CD-Rom.
Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile
35
Silva, S.C.; Carvalho, P.C.F. 2005. Foraging behaviour and herbage intake in the favourable tropics/
subtropics. In: Mc Gilloway, D. A. (Org.). Grassland: a global resource. Wageningen, p. 81–96.
Zimmer, A.H., Euclides Filho, K. 1997. Brazilian pasture and beef production. In: International Symposium
on Animal Production under Grazing, Viçosa, Proceedings, p.1–30.
Zimmer, A.H., Macedo, M.C.M., Kichel, A.N., Euclides, V.P.B. 2004. Integrated agropastoral production
systems. In: Guimarães, E.P., Sanz, J.I., Rao, I.M. et al. (Eds.). Agropastoral systems for the tropical
savannas of Latin America, CIAT, p.253–290.
9. CONTACTS
This profile was prepared by Paulo César de Faccio Carvalho. His research area
is the plant/animal relations and integrated crop-livestock systems and since
October 1997 he has lectured at the Faculdade de Agronomia, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, in Porto Alegre - RS, in Southern Brazil.
E-mail: [email protected]
To prepare a Country Pasture Resource Profile for such a large and diverse
country as Brazil has not been a simple task. The author wishes to thank
important contributors and has much appreciated the comments received
from various reviewers. Contributions are still welcome. Arrangements are
being made for local revision and updating.
[The profile was prepared in April/May 2002 and was edited by S.G. Reynolds and J.M. Suttie in June
2002; it was further modified by S.G. Reynolds in October 2005, and a major revision undertaken by
Paulo C. de F. Carvalho in January, 2006.]