This document discusses agriculture and land use in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). It notes that LAC has significant potential as a global food supplier due to its arable land and climate conditions. It describes several major agroecosystems in the region, including hillsides, tropical savannas, and forest margins. It then provides examples of sustainable agriculture practices used in these ecosystems, such as slash-and-mulch techniques and crop-livestock integration. The document analyzes the impacts of these practices, finding benefits like increased yields, incomes, and carbon sequestration compared to conventional techniques.

1. Some Facts about Agriculture in
LAC
• LAC- < 10% world’s population (600 mil).
• 23% arable land, 46% tropical forests, 31%
water.
• LAC >>>> potential as global food supplier.
• > Biophysical Mitigation Potential to largest in
LAC and SE Asia
• Major Agroecosystems:
– Hillsides (96 Mha)
– Tropical Savannas (250 Mha)
– Forest Margins (44 Mha)

2. HHiillllssiiddeess::
QQuueessuunngguuaall SSllaasshh aanndd MMuullcchh AAggrrooffoorreessttrryy SSyysstteemm
((QQSSMMAASS))

3. No slash & burn
Management (partial, selective, and progressive slash-and-prune)
of natural vegetation
Permanent soil cover
Continual deposition of biomass from trees, shrubs and
weeds, and through crop residues
Minimal disturbance of soil
No tillage, direct seedling, and reduced soil disturbance
during agronomic practices
Efficient use of fertilizer
Appropriate application (timing, type, amount, location)
of fertilizers

4. • Honduras:
–– CCrroopp pprroodduuccttiivviittyy::
mmaaiizzee ⇧⇧4422%%,,
ccoommmmoonn bbeeaann
⇧⇧3388%%
• Nicaragua:
–– NNeett iinnccoommee mmaaiizzee
++ ccoommmmoonn bbeeaann ==
⇧⇧8833%% ((vvss.. SSBB))
Grain yield (kg ha-1)
2 0 0 0
1 8 0 0
1 6 0 0
1 4 0 0
1 2 0 0
1 0 0 0
8 0 0
6 0 0
4 0 0
2 0 0
0
M a iz e
C om m o n b e a n s
&S lBausrhn QS-MFAS QS+MFAS
-1
)
Grain yield (t ha
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Maize
Common bean
DMS0.05= ns
DMS0.05= 0.43
&S lBausrhn QS+MFAS

5. • QSMAS farms:
– Relatively low emission of nitrous oxide (N2O)
– Sink for methane (CH4)
– C sequestration (SOC)
equivalents ha-1 y-1)
2
GWP (kg CO
Slash and Burn
QSMAS
Secondary Forest
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
42%
• Global Warming Potential
(GWP) where QSMAS is
practiced:
– 12 municipalities, 67,000
inhabitants
– 1143 km²

6. SSaavvaannnnaass::
CCrroopp--lliivveessttoocckk
ssyysstteemmss

7. grass-legume
pasture
5000
-5000
-15000
-25000
forest savanna sandy
savanna
crops
grass
alone
pasture
GWP (kg CO2 equivalents)
GWP20y GWP100y
IInntteeggrraatteedd GGlloobbaall
WWaarrmmiinngg PPootteennttiiaall
((GGWWPP)) ooff ddiiffffeerreenntt
llaanndd uusseess iinn tthhee
ssaavvaannnnaass ooff
CCoolloommbbiiaa
((RRoonnddoonn eett aall..,, 22000066))

8. Cumulative nitrous oxide emissions ffrroomm ffiieelldd
pplloottss ooff ttrrooppiiccaall ppaassttuurree ggrraasssseess
((mmoonniittoorreedd mmoonntthhllyy ffrroomm 22000055--22000088))
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Bare Soil Soybean P.maximum Hybrid Mulato Bh 679 Bh 16888
mg N2O-N m-2 y-1

9. Optimization and characterization of Fruit
production systems

10. Optimization and
characterization of production
systems

11. Life cycle analysis (or eco-balance):
Assesses the environmental profile of a production system or a food
production chain along the whole life cycle of a product.
Quantifies its resource use and aims to identify significant areas of
environmental impact.
Allows for a better understanding of how to reduce the environmental
impact and to increase the sustainability of products and/or farming
systems.
Energy and carbon footprints are important sustainability indicators
of production systems

12. Carbon footprint of fruit production systems in Colombia
Mora (Rubus glaucus)
Area cultivated: 10,743 ha
Yield: 8.7 t ha-1 yr-1
2500 plants ha-1
Economical life: 3 years
Nutrient inputs (kg ha-1 yr-1)
N: 140 – 233
P: 90 – 170
K: 80 – 160
Guanabana (Annona muricata)
Area cultivated: 2,395 ha
Yield: 9.0 t ha-1 yr-1
~ 240 trees ha-1
Economical life: 10 yrs
Nutrient inputs (kg ha-1 yr-1)
N: 30 - 80
P: 10 - 30
K: 15 – 40

13. Carbon footprints of Mora and Guanabana production systems calculated
as CO2 equivalents
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
CO eq. (kg ha ) 2
-1
Guanábana
Agrochemicals
Embodied emissions fertiliser production
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
0
CO eq. (kg ha ) 2
-1
1 2 3
Year
Mora
Fertiliser induced
Calculated with the Cool Farm Tool, a
greenhouse gas calculator for farming
systems, provided as open source
from the Sustainable Food Lab
(http://www.sustainablefoodlab.org)
High share of fertilizer induced
emissions (mainly N2O) and
embodied CO2 emissions of fertilizer
production.
Great potential to reduce C
footprint through alternative nutrient
management.
Further research is required on how
to incorporate C sequestration of
perennial trees into PES schemes.

14. Carbon footprint of
bioethanol production from
banana and cooking banana
discard (Costa Rica, Ecuador)
Comparison of three production systems:
(1) Agroforestry system where Musa are planted
as shade trees for coffee and do not receive extra
input.
(2) Organic banana producers, where fertilizer
inputs originate from within the farm boundary
(compost, animal manure).
(3) Conventional banana producers who apply
large amounts of mineral fertilizers and pesticides.

15. rendimiento bananas
rendimiento
numero de plantas
peso de racimo
cantidad desechos
desechos
porcentaje desecho
area de finca
rendimiento etanol por hectarea
eficiencia de conversion precio gasolina
etanol
consumo de gasolina
costos gasolina
rendimiento etanol finca
etanol finca
substitucion de gasolina
substitucion

16. Table 2. Production data for the Ecuador case studies.
Organic farms (Chimborazo-
Guayas)
Conventional
farms
(Guayas)
Average farm size (ha) 31.3 2.7
Varieties Bocadillo Tafetan Total Cavendish
Average area banana cultivation (ha) 13.3 6.7 20 2.5
# plants ha-1 1112 625 - 1216
bunch weight (kg) 13.5 16.2 - 28
Yield (t ha-1 yr-1) 15.0 6.4 21.4 34.1
Waste (%) 8.3 8.3 - 8.3
Waste biomass (t ha-1 yr-1) 1.3 0.5 1.8 2.8
Pulp (%) 59.1 65.8 - 62.0
Pulp biomass from waste (t ha-1 yr-1) 0.74 0.35 1.1 1.75
Dry matter (%) 34.6 26.9 - 33.1
Dry matter waste biomass (kg ha-1 yr-1) 254.8 94.2 349.0 579.9
Starch (%) 82.6 77.0 - 82.3
Starch waste biomass (kg ha-1 yr-1) 210.5 72.6 283.0 477.3
ETOH per bunch (mL) 84 79 - 122
ETOH from waste biomass (L ha-1 yr-1) 75.8 26.1 101.9 171.8
ETOH from waste per farm (L yr-1) 2038 430
1 Data taken from Gibert et al. (2009)

17. Carbon emissions during bioethanol life cycle
C costs of bioethanol
production from conventional
banana producers are three
times higher than in
agroforestry system, mainly
due to high amounts of
external inputs.
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
C emissions (kg L-1)
Processing plant
Transportation
Pesticides
Fertilizer
Costa Rica
Agroforestry
Ecuador
conventional
Ecuador
organic

18. Avoided C emissions of bioethanol from Musa discard
All three bioethanol production
systems yielded avoided C emission,
but values for agroforestry systems and
organic producers were higher than for
the conventional producers.
Farm households could save 220-
1038 kg C yr-1 (depending on farm size)
when replacing petroleum based
gasoline with bioethanol from Musa
discard.
It has to be further assessed how
this approach could be integrated
into PES schemes.
C emissions bioethanol
C emissions gasoline
Avoided C emissions
Costa Rica
Agroforestry
Ecuador
conventional
Ecuador
organic
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
C (kg L-1)
Graefe et al. (2010) Energy and carbon footprints of bioethanol production using banana and cooking banana discard:
A case study from Costa Rica and Ecuador . To be submitted to Biomass and Bioenergy