# Sustainability of livestock systems in the pampa Biome of Brazil: An analysis highlighting the rangeland dilemma

João Garibaldi Almeida Viana, Rafaela Vendruscolo, Vicente Celestino Pires Silveira, Fernando Luiz Ferreira de Quadros, Mariana Patricia Mezzomo, Jean-François Tourrand

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

João Garibaldi Almeida Viana, Rafaela Vendruscolo, Vicente Celestino Pires Silveira, Fernando Luiz Ferreira de Quadros, Mariana Patricia Mezzomo, et al. "Sustainability of livestock systems in the pampa Biome of Brazil: An analysis highlighting the rangeland dilemma." Sustainability, 2021, 13 (24), pp.13781. 10.3390/su132413781. hal-05183288

HAL Id: hal-05183288

https://hal.science/hal-05183288v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Article

# Sustainability of Livestock Systems in the Pampa Biome of Brazil: An Analysis Highlighting the Rangeland Dilemma

João Garibaldi Almeida Viana <fnref n="1" />,* , Rafaela Vendruscolo <fnref n="2" />, Vicente Celestino Pires Silveira <fnref n="3" />,⁰
Fernando Luiz Ferreira de Quadros <fnref n="4" />, Mariana Patricia Mezzomo <fnref n="4" /> and Jean François Tourrand <fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" />

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

**Citation:** Viana, J.G.A.; Vendruscolo, R.; Silveira, V.C.P.; de Quadros, F.L.F.; Mezzomo, M.P.; Tourrand, J.F.
Sustainability of Livestock Systems in the Pampa Biome of Brazil: An Analysis Highlighting the Rangeland Dilemma. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 13781. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413781

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Todde

Received: 11 August 2021

Accepted: 26 November 2021

Published: 14 December 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

**Abstract:** The objective of this study was to analyse the sustainability of different livestock systems in the Brazilian Pampa biome, from the perspective of the rangeland dilemma. We used the indicator-based framework for evaluating the sustainability of natural resource management systems (MESMIS). These were constructed for social, economic and environmental dimensions, and they were measured across a study suite of 115 establishments, representing the rangeland livestock system (RLS), intensive livestock system, and livestock-agricultural system (ALS). Indicator averages were compared between three systems via ANOVA and Tukey test. The results allocated a higher level of sustainability to RLS. When the three land-use systems were analysed across the dimensions, significant differences were found in their environmental sustainability, with the ALS presenting poorer results. Within each dimension, there were significant differences in the indicators for production systems, social participation and capital flow. We discussed two main points: the results found through the concept of the rangeland dilemma, by exploring its conditions, in addition to exposing the concept of functional integrity. In conclusion, an approach to develop policies for the Pampa is to recognize the rangeland as a “common good”, to generate income and stimulate the local economy.

**Keywords:** functional integrity; MESMIS method; rangeland socio-ecosystem; sustainability indicators; sustainable rangeland management

## 1. Introduction

Natural (or native) pastures comprise one and two thirds of the global land inventory, including deserts, steppes, grasslands, pampas, scrublands, and tree savannas; they are spread over five continents—in plains, mountainous, and flooded lands, and in tropical, temperate, and polar zones [1]. Rangelands have been historically important for the economy of all continents. For many centuries, nations have facilitated the social and economic development of their people by developing national water and mineral resources and exploiting their biodiversity, especially through livestock husbandry in rangelands.

In South America, the Pampa biome is a rangeland that occupies approximately 750,000 km<fnref n="2" />, including parts of Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil. The Pampa biome stands out for its water wealth, soil and vegetation, and imposing biodiversity, a part of which is yet to be scientifically investigated [2,3]. It has been estimated that the biome biodiversity is represented by approximately 3000 plant species, including a wide variety of grasses and legumes, as well as 500 species of birds, and more than 100 species of land mammals [4,5].

The landscape includes plains, small mountains, rocky hills, and gently rolling relief, accompanied by riparian and hillside forests, shrubby formations, and wetlands. The

<footnote n="1">¹ Business and Economics, Federal University of Pampa, Santana do Livramento 97573-634, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Rural Development, Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology Farroupilha,
São Vicente do Sul 97420-000, Brazil; rafaela.vendruscolo@iffarroupilha.edu.br</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Rural Extension, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, Brazil; vcpsilveira@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Animal Science, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, Brazil; flfquadros@gmail.com (F.L.F.d.Q.); mariana_mezzomo@hotmail.com (M.P.M.); tourrand@aol.com (J.F.T.)</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development—CIRAD, 34398 Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: joaoviana@unipampa.edu.br</footnote>
Pampa biome has a history of agrarian occupation and of nurturing the social development of the gaucho, who managed extensive livestock systems, especially cattle and sheep [6–11]. Thus, the socio-productive and man-nature relationship dynamics in this biome have allowed the Pampean landscape to be maintained for generations.

However, in the last 50 years, this landscape has been transformed by advances in agriculture and changes in economic, social, environmental, cultural, political, and institutional factors [10,12–14]. According to these studies, the transformation started when many local and global stakeholders began to see the rangeland as an “empty” space that should be exploited more profitably and began to regard extensive cattle ranching as a relatively unprofitable production system.

A case in point can be made in the fact that the Pampa biome region of Brazil, located in the southern half of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, has been considered for the last 100 years to be a poorly developed region with low economic dynamics [15–17]. A social construct for the development of this region has been adopted by opinion-shapers and policymakers, and this has legitimized the expansion of agriculture over the Pampa biome under the banner of developing the economy of Brazil’s extreme south.

This expansion can be witnessed through official data. According to IBGE—Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [18], the area planted with soybeans in the municipalities belonging to the Pampa biome in Brazil increased from 686,000 hectares in 2000 to 2.67 million hectares in 2019. According to [19], the increase in the price of soybeans, which started in the 2000s, encouraged the expansion of soybean and rice cultivation in the Brazilian Pampa, transforming much of the region's known native pastures into agricultural land. This scenario caused a restructuring of the local productive spaces, previously dedicated almost exclusively to beef cattle raising.

Animal production systems based on pasture are carbon equivalent sinks. Although the isolated animal component could be a methane source, the grass component is a major carbon sink, being able to counteract also grain production systems that are carbon releasers [20]. Most of the so-called hybrid systems (ALS) are using cultivation techniques that released carbon stored for centuries in natural plants root systems and using part of this nutrients for producing grains that are used as animal feed elsewhere, not as human feed [21,22].

Therefore, natural grasslands, replaced by years of agricultural production, take decades to be fully restored. Consequently, with natural grassland replacement, the ecosystem loses much of its environmental capability, especially in terms of biodiversity, carbon and water sequestration, and erosion control. Moreover, the recent production and socioeconomic transformations have caused a series of changes across the pampa territory, including the adoption of technological innovations in animal husbandry, either with or without crop production [23].

This presents a dilemma. On one hand, Pampa biome rangelands provide essential environmental functions such as the maintenance of water cycle, erosion control, conservation of biodiversity, and protecting fundamental social metrics for future generations. On the other hand, it leads to poor development of these regions. From an economic viewpoint, the fertile lands could have been used for agriculture, especially for grain production, motivated by the dynamics of international trade and increasing Brazil's GDP. Both sides of this dilemma relate to the sustainability of the different livestock systems in Brazil's Pampa biome.

This transformation scenario has redefined the livestock production systems explored in the territory. According to [13,23–25] there are three different livestock production systems in the Brazilian Pampa biome: the rangeland livestock system (RLS), exclusive livestock farming in the rangeland, with low use of external inputs; the intensive livestock system (ILS), livestock farming in the rangeland, intensified with nutritional management of cultivated pasture and mineral and/or protein and energy supplementation; and the agricultural- livestock system (ALS), a cattle farming operation integrated with grain agriculture, in particular with soy and/or rice crops.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the social, economic, and environ-
mental sustainability of the three main livestock systems used in the Brazilian Pampa biome
to solve the “rangeland dilemma.” Thus, in this paper, conservation of natural grasslands’
diversity is discussed based on the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental
sustainability of three major livestock systems in Brazilian Pampa Biome. “The rangeland
dilemma” is referred to the paradoxical need for conservation of slightly “anthropized”
natural ecosystems and socio-economic dynamics capable of generating regional devel-
opment. Sustainability indicators were created by means of MESMIS operational cycle
and tested by applying 115 questionnaires in cattle farms with establishment of the three
livestock systems in the Brazilian Pampa Biome.

Silveira et al. [19] found that the comparative sustainability of different livestock
systems in the Pampa biome has not been studied. These authors reported that recent
sustainability studies had generally dealt with only one dimension (economic, social, or
environmental) and often focused on a single production system format. Furthermore,
the rangeland dilemma, a result of recent transformations in the Brazilian Pampa biome,
applies to rangelands globally, although it has been poorly studied everywhere, owing to
its recent emergence as a sustainability issue. Thus, the present study provides a systematic
approach for the analysis of productive transformations focused on the Brazilian Pampa
Biome, which can be replicated in other study contexts. Furthermore, this study can serve
as a tool for the formulation of public policies toward the sustainable development of
the region.

The study is structured as follows: after the introduction, the study context is pre-
sented, highlighting the transformations of the rangeland exploitation in the Brazilian
Pampa biome, followed by the MESMIS operational cycle, which methodologically sub-
stantiates the research. "The MESMIS method was defined by Masera et al. [26] as the
procedure for evaluating the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of live-
stock systems in the biome. The choice is justified by the method's capability to create and
measure sustainability indicators using the participation of the local actors themselves,
from an interdisciplinary perspective. Subsequently, the results are presented, based on the
critical points and sustainability indicators measured in 115 cattle farms in the Brazilian
Pampa. Finally, the results are discussed in order to substantiate and prove the existence
of the rangeland dilemma. This approach also addresses the importance of this study in
proposing public policies that allow for the sustainable exploitation of natural resources
of this biome. Thus, the article contributes to scientific research by presenting an analysis
method that can be tested in other contexts where the rangeland dilemma may need to
be verified.

**2. Materials and Methods**

2.1. *Context of the Study: The Brazilian Pampa Biome and the Historical Dynamics of Rangeland Exploitation*

The Brazilian Pampa biome is located in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. It occupies approximately 177,000 km², or just over 2% of Brazil, and 63% of the state (Figure 1). The flattened relief ranges between 500 m and 800 m, and it enjoys a subtropical climate with mild temperatures, regular rainfall, and fertile soil. This facilitated its original development for livestock ranching, which contributed to the local and national economies [27]. The Pampa territory consists primarily of three micro-regions within Rio Grande do Sul—the *Campanha Meridional*, *Campanha Ocidental*, and *Campanha Central*—comprising 19 municipalities [18].
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Location of the Pampa biome in South America and Brazil and the research area (Source: Adapted from [28]).</figcaption></figure>

The landscape of the Pampa biome, with its predominance of natural grasslands, predates the Pleistocene (13,000 years BP), during which it supported predominantly large animals (horses, camelids, giant sloths, macrauchenia, and toxodons), as well as the first humans [5,29]. Paleontological studies have suggested that the biodiversity of the pasture flora was conserved by the grazing megafaunas, in combination with the first human groups who used fire for hunting purposes. These grazing and burning practices continued during the following eras that were dominated by smaller animals; these animals were also hunted by the indigenous people. It has been suggested that without these practices, the native pastures would have evolved into forests [30–33].

When the Europeans first arrived in the 16th century, the tribes inhabiting the area, now known as Rio Grande, do Sul (Brazil), were the *Charruas* and *Minuanos*, who were dependent on hunting, fishing, and gathering, and the *Guaranis* and *Chanás*, who were more involved with farming. The Spanish Jesuit missionaries, who aimed at catechizing the local people and building a new society, were able to settle the *Guaranis*, an ethnic group accustomed to villages. The Jesuits brought seeds and animals to maintain their reductions (controlled farming areas); they brought exotic animals to the Pampa, including cattle, mules, horses, and sheep, and found the natural environment favorable for their development [34]. The Jesuits raised loose cattle in the so-called “vacarias”, and these bovines proceeded to reproduce in large numbers because of the favorable conditions of the Pampa.

At the beginning of the 17th century, in response to barriers on importing African slaves, the sugar farmers in the São Paulo region sought to use the native people as slave labor for their crops. Thus, the “bandeirantes” (expeditioners) from São Paulo, slave hunters for sugar properties, entered the unexploited territories in search of labor, finding indigenous people already disciplined for work in the Jesuit reductions. These incursions by slavers hunting for native Indians and their ongoing attacks on the Jesuit reductions led to the emigration of the Jesuits and proliferation of the now-wild cattle—that is, cattle that lived unconfined in the natural grasslands. Noting the economic, food, and work potential of these cattle, the “bandeirantes” intensified their incursions into the territory, whose
colonial ownership was still in dispute during that time between Portugal and Spain. With the "bandeirantes" arrival, the weakening of the reductions, and the favorable environment for reproduction, cattles expanded throughout the Pampa of Brazil and became a large herd. According to historical reports, by 1700, the wild herd in Rio Grande do Sul was estimated to be 48 million [29].

By the end of the territorial wars between Portugal and Spain, today's territorial boundaries were established, dividing the Pampa between Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. With the allocation of free allotments, between the 17th and 19th centuries, a social and productive organization was established around the ranches, involving re-domesticating the wild cattle that lived unrestricted following the end of the Jesuit reductions [35–37]. The allotments were huge native countryside areas involving thousands of hectares, and they were donated by the colonial (and then imperial) governments to their deserving servants, especially from the military, to populate, and thus secure national borders with Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay.

Once the process of Pampa colonization by cattle and sheep was established, gaucho society started making a significant contribution to the colonial/imperial Brazilian economy. This was mainly achieved by supplying cattle products to domestic and international markets [10,15]; these included primary products such as leather, wool, jerked beef, and fresh meat since the advent of refrigeration at the beginning of the 20th century [7,8].

However, the biodiversity of the Brazilian Pampa biome began to be threatened by the poor management of the rangeland. The issues included neglecting pasture rotation and overgrazing, and they became significant from the second half of the twentieth century. This led to reduced native grass coverage and proliferation of the invasive annoni grass (Eragrostis plana) from South Africa, resulting in pasture degradation [29]. These damaged pastures produced less meat and created opportunities for a third environmental transformation cycle to advance over the Pampa, i.e., the industrialization of agriculture [29].

At the end of the 19th century, there was a strong wave of European migration, mainly from Italy and Germany to the northern part of Rio Grande do Sul (the Atlantic Forest biome); this was another important factor contributing to these environmental transformations. In the second half of the 20th century, descendants of these immigrants migrated to the fields of the Brazilian Pampa and the northern and central-western regions of Brazil in response to public policies seeking to expand the agricultural frontier. These immigrants brought a culture of rural exploitation to the Pampa based on agriculture, which, up to that point, had not been widespread in the region. Thus, many of today's grain producers in the Pampa biome of Brazil, who form the basis of the agriculture business there, are heirs to this agricultural colonization.

Replacement of rangelands with agriculture has been a major cause of the current biome degradation. To maintain or increase livestock productivity, the producer replaces degraded native pastures with an agricultural crop and cultivates non-native pastures in the same area to increase fodder production for the herd. This temporary substitution, which lasts for one or two years, opens up space for permanent agriculture implementation in a Pampa rangeland area in an entrepreneurial manner, as noted by several authors, including [29,38,39].

Thus, the debate regarding the expansion of the Brazilian Pampa biome exploitation and the recent dilemma of the rangeland is consolidated. This dilemma can be explained by defining land use by productive systems, with a conservationist character of the pastoral ecosystem or agricultural systems, with a significant impact on the soil-plant-atmosphere system. This process reveals the existence of three different livestock production systems in the biome: extensive livestock farming on the rangeland, intensive livestock farming on the rangeland, and livestock farming integrated with grain crops, initially rice and more recently soybean farming.

The livestock systems in the Brazilian Pampa biome are exploited for beef and/or lamb production. The cattle breeds raised are predominantly British, such as Hereford and Aberdeen Angus, and they cross breed with Brahman breeds. The predominant sheep
breeds are Corriedale, Polwarth and Texel. The livestock properties, according to the agricultural census of IBGE—the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [40], have an average area of 348 hectares, but with strong heterogeneity in size, some establishments with less than 30 hectares and others with more than 2000 hectares. The nutritional management of the herd is based on the natural grasslands. Part of the cattle farms use cultivated pastures during the cool season, mainly with annual grasses such as Oats (*Avena sativa* and *Avena strigosa*) and Ryegrass (*Lolium multiflorum*). Mineral and/or protein and energy supplementation can also be found. Cattle raising is sometimes integrated with grain farming, called “agricultural-livestock system,” The main integrated crops are soybean and rice.

As mentioned previously, this diversity of production in the Brazilian Pampa biome is basically developed in three livestock systems [13,23–25]: (a) rangeland livestock system (RLS)—cattle farming exclusively in the rangeland; (b) intensive livestock system (ILS)—cattle farming in the rangeland, cultivated pasture and supplementation; (c) agricultural-livestock system (ALS))—cattle farming integrated with grain agriculture, especially soy and rice cultivation. Thus, these three systems were analyzed and compared with respect to environmental, social, and economic sustainability to solve the rangeland dilemma.

## 2.2. *The MESMIS Method and Its Implementation*

Our work involved applying a mixed, descriptive approach, using the MESMIS method (from the Spanish "Marco para Evaluación de Sistemas de Manejo de Recursos Naturales Incorporando Indicadores de Sustentabilidad" [26,41], which can be generally translated to mean an Indicator-based Framework for Evaluating the Sustainability of Natural Resource Management Systems. The MESMIS method seeks to apply the concept of sustainability, identifying variables and indicators to help establish sustainability issues in rural communities, and collaborating with stakeholders for an appropriate symbiosis between them and their environment [26].

According to [42], the MESMIS method involves applying the following guidelines: (a) Sustainability is defined by seven general attributes: productivity, stability, reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity, and self-sufficiency; (b) The sustainability analysis is only valid for a specific production system in a given geographical location (with prior spatial delimitation of the applicable region, community, and production unit), over a given period; (c) The evaluation process should be participatory, using an interdisciplinary perspective and including external and internal evaluators (farmers, technicians, community representatives, researchers, etc.); (d) Sustainability should be measured by comparing two or more systems, using either transverse or longitudinal sections. The MESMIS operationalization involves a six-step assessment cycle, as shown in Figure 2. This operationalization has already been tested and used in several empirical objects, such as [43].

The MESMIS operational cycle was first used to define the RLS, ILS, and ALS Brazilian Pampa biome livestock systems. At this stage, we also conducted documentary and bibliographic research on the importance of the Pampa biome socio-ecosystems, looking at the regional history and the processes of human occupation and consequent landscape transformation, as already explained in the introduction.

The construction of the indicators began at stage 2 of the MESMIS evaluation cycle, with the implementation of a participatory methodology with researchers and extensionists, with a total of sixteen (16) professionals, in order to identify the critical points (strengths and weaknesses) of the livestock systems of the Brazilian Pampa biome. Strategies such as brainstorming and mobile visualization were used in this step. The constitution of this group followed the MESMIS premise of “interdisciplinary,” and it involved researchers from the Federal University of Pampa (Universidade Federal do Pampa, UNIPAMPA) and the Federal University of Santa Maria (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, UFSM), extension workers from the Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Company (Empresa de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural, EMATER/RS), and local government representatives.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Summary of the research steps based on the MESMIS operational cycle (Source: Adapted from [42]).</figcaption></figure>

Then, in step 3 of the evaluation cycle, a new participatory discussion group was established, involving eight (8) farmers, for the construction and selection of the indicators of social, economic, and environmental sustainability of the systems, with reference to the critical points identified in step 2. The participating farmers develop the livestock activity in the Pampa biome, representing the three systems under analysis. This resulted in the construction of indicators to measure sustainability in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of livestock production systems, with their weights defined based on the group's consensus, as presented in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Description of economic, social and environmental sustainability indicators.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Social</td><td>Education</td><td>15</td><td>Educational level and training received in the last three years</td></tr><tr><td>Participation and traditional knowledge</td><td>10</td><td>Level of participation in collective spaces and confirmed production development knowledge.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of life</td><td>50</td><td>Measures that involve characteristics of the home infrastructure of producers and employees, sources of water and light, access to roads, education, and health services in rural areas, working conditions and forms of communication (internet, telephone, and TV).</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Succession</td><td>25</td><td>Measures relating to the existence and predisposition of successors to continue in RLS, ILS, or ALS production.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Economic</td><td>Capital flow</td><td>20</td><td>Origin of family income (agricultural production, retirement, services, etc.), identification of losses and damage from cattle raiding or predators. Quality of practices implemented for animal welfare, resistance to parasites, need for food supplementation, use of improved native and /or cultivated pasture, breed standardization, access to inputs and use of technical assistance.</td></tr><tr><td>Production system</td><td>30</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Land property</td><td>15</td><td>Percentage of total land owned.</td></tr><tr><td>Financial autonomy</td><td>20</td><td>Level of indebtedness (ratio between debt and annual gross revenue) and existence of accounting and production management controls.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Environmental</td><td>Transmissibility</td><td>15</td><td>Measure of the capacity to transmit the productive system to future generations (area per heir)</td></tr><tr><td>Rangeland conditions and management</td><td>65</td><td>Relationship between total and field load capacity: level of rangeland degradation (% forage, weeds, and uncovered areas, forms of weed control)</td></tr><tr><td>Cultures</td><td>20</td><td>History and extent of incorporating agriculture into the system</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Environmental</td><td>Environmental conscientiousness and legislation</td><td>10</td><td>Disposal (or not) of veterinary and agrochemical product packaging in authorized locations; having environmental licenses for fuel storage and dam construction; separation and delivery of rural garbage for recycling.</td></tr><tr><td>Invasive/exotic animal species</td><td>5</td><td>Presence/absence of exotic animals and predators on the property</td></tr></tbody></table>

The completion of step 3 of the evaluation cycle resulted in the construction of a questionnaire, which had 44 variables for use in quantifying the 13 sustainability indicators. The sustainability value of each dimension (social, economic and environmental) was composed by the sum of the weights of the indicators, ranging from 0 to 100. In a specific analysis of sustainability within the dimensions, each indicator was weighted; the closer the value was to 100, the greater was the sustainability allocated to the indicator within its dimension. A detailed description of each indicator, their weights, the variables that compose them and how they are measured can be found in Appendix A Table A1. The evaluation cycle (measurement and monitoring of the indicators using a questionnaire in the field) started in step 4. To select a suitable farm sub-set for sampling, we used the 'sampling for estimating a population proportion' technique [44], resulting in a 115-farm sampling suite, distributed as shown in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Sample stratification, based on Brazilian Pampa biome micro-regions.</caption><thead><tr><th>Biome Micro-Region</th><th>RLS</th><th>ILS</th><th>ALS</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Campanha Ocidental</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Campanha Central</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>13</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Campanha Meridional</td><td>16</td><td>16</td><td>18</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>37</td><td>37</td><td>41</td><td>115</td></tr></tbody></table>

A pre-test of the questionnaire was conducted with two rural producers and two specialists to verify the questions' suitability, and the modified questionnaire was applied in the field to the stakeholder subject base listed in Table 2. The survey took place from June to November 2018. In Stage 5, the integration and presentation of the results was carried out using the techniques for qualitative analysis of documents (such as biome history, occupation process, and transformations), and quantitative analysis of descriptive statistics and hypothesis tests (livestock system sustainability indicators). Although the MESMIS enables the analysis of indicators both by attributes and by dimensions of sustainability [45], we opted in this study for the analysis of indicators between and within dimensions (economic, social, and environmental). Indicator analyses relied on graphic representation
using radar graphics, which facilitated the sustainability indicator analysis in the context of comparing the dimensions.

The sustainability indicators were compared between the livestock systems—RLS, ILS, and ALS—using analysis of variance, and multiple mean comparisons were conducted using Tukey's test, with a 10% maximum level of significance. The conclusions and recommendations from step 6 were used as discussion topics; this allowed results to be integrated with the rangeland dilemma perspective to establish future sustainability scenarios for Brazilian Pampa biome society and natural resources.

### 3. Results

*Evaluation of Sustainability of Brazilian Pampa Biome Livestock Production System*

The assessment of sustainability, based on the identification of the dynamics of transformations in the exploitation of the rangeland, initially involves the determination of the critical points of the production systems by specialists (researchers and extensionists). Table 3 presents the strengths and weaknesses of the livestock systems in the economic, social, and environmental dimensions and their respective indicators, according to step 2 of the MESMIS methodology.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Critical points of livestock production systems in the Brazilian Pampa biome and their respective indicators.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Strengths</th><th>Indicators</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Environmental</td><td>Cattle raising in natural grassland<br>Environmental awareness of producers</td><td>Rangeland conditions and management<br>Environmental conscientiousness and legislation</td></tr><tr><td>Economic</td><td>Credit availability<br>Liquidity<br>Existence of non-agricultural income<br>Commercialization and Market<br>Animal health<br>Knowledge of production practices technology<br>Savings reserve<br>Low economic and productive risk of the activity</td><td>Capital flow<br>Production system<br>Financial autonomy<br>Land property<br>Production system</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>Existence of non-economic motivations (tradition and culture)</td><td>Participation and traditional knowledge</td></tr><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Weaknesses</th><th>Indicators</th></tr><tr><td>Environmental</td><td>Presence of exotic predators, such as the wild boar<br>Presence of invasive native and exotic plants<br>Pressure of intensive agriculture on the livestock</td><td>Invasive/exotic animal species<br>Rangeland conditions and management<br>Cultures</td></tr><tr><td>Economic</td><td>Low zootechnical indexes<br>Lack of production scale<br>Limited use of economic management tools<br>Cattle raiding<br>Low transmissibility</td><td>Production system<br>Financial autonomy<br>Capital flow<br>Transmissibility</td></tr><tr><td>Social</td><td>Low level of participation and capacity building<br>Low social reproduction (succession)<br>Road, education, and health conditions in rural areas<br>Decrease in traditional knowledge<br>Resistance to change and conservatism of producers<br>Individualism</td><td>Education<br>Participation and traditional knowledge<br>Succession<br>Quality of life<br>Participation and traditional knowledge</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Research data.

The main strengths of the livestock systems in the Pampa biome are the farmers' proficiency in production technologies and management, the presence of consumer markets, livestock farming as a source of savings associated with non-agricultural income generation, the availability of credit policies, and exploitation in the rangelands to minimize the environmental impacts on the biome. Meanwhile, there are weaknesses of the livestock
systems, such as the low social reproduction of the players, the loss of traditional knowledge, the poor condition of roads, education, and health services in rural communities, and the limited participation of producers in associative initiatives. Additionally, from the economic and environmental point of view, the presence of predators, such as wild boar (*Sus scrofa*), the increase in invasive exotic plants, such as the Annoni Grass (*Eragrostis plana* Nees), cattle raide and the pressure of grain agriculture on the traditional cattle raising areas in the biome are noteworthy.

All these elements together gave rise to the indicators of economic, social and environmental sustainability of cattle breeding in the Brazilian Pampa biome, built in a participatory manner by producers and specialists, according to step 3 of MESMIS. Therefore, the three production systems affect the socio-ecosystem of the Pampa differently and determine the sustainability of rural establishment production. In Table 4, we present the results achieved with reference to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability indices by the 115 tested rural facilities, which included representative RLS (*n* = 37), ILS (*n* = 37), and ALS (*n* = 41) landholdings.

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Sustainability index results for livestock production systems in the Brazilian Pampa.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>RLS</th><th>ILS</th><th>ALS</th><th><i>p</i>-Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social sustainability</td><td>67.59 <sup>a</sup></td><td>68.74 <sup>a</sup></td><td>69.35 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.842</td></tr><tr><td>Economic sustainability</td><td>59.73 <sup>a</sup></td><td>59.08 <sup>a</sup></td><td>58.47 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.914</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental sustainability</td><td>63.46 <sup>a</sup></td><td>59.06 <sup>a</sup></td><td>46.09 <sup>b</sup></td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>General sustainability</td><td>63.59 <sup>a</sup></td><td>62.29 <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>57.97 <sup>b</sup></td><td>0.023</td></tr></tbody></table>

Different letters (a and b) indicate significant difference in sustainability index between the systems.

The results indicated that the RLS and ILS achieved the highest general index results for sustainability (*p* < 0.05). This meant that livestock farms without grain agriculture had a greater capacity to survive and self-perpetuate. These data validated the synergistic role of livestock farming in the Pampa—the more oriented the livestock farm was to preserving native pastures, the higher was the sustainability index.

A segmented analysis of the sustainability results showed that there were no significant differences between the degrees of economic and social sustainability of the systems. This was an important finding, demonstrating that a livestock system integrated with grain agriculture was no more economically sustainable than an exclusive livestock system (whether intensive or extensive).

However, with respect to environmental sustainability, the RLS scored better than the ALS (*p* < 0.01). When reflecting on the conservation of the Brazilian Pampa biome, this result demonstrated the importance of maintaining and promoting livestock systems that developed exclusively in the rangeland. The data showed that, after the various economic and productivity transformations in the Brazilian Pampa, cattle farming in the rangelands contributed more to the biome's environmental sustainability. This was a particularly important finding because the Pampa in Brazil has few designated conservation areas; thus, that responsibility for environmental protection falls mainly on the regional RLS and ILS operators [46].

In Figure 3, the indicators for each sustainability dimension between livestock systems are presented comparatively. Clear similarities can be seen in the social dimension trends, with emphasis on high “Succession” indicator values. This demonstrates the existence of successors, and in most establishments, their predisposition to remain in the livestock industry in the future, regardless of the system under analysis.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Sustainability indicators for the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of the RLS, ILS, and ALS cattle systems in the Brazilian Pampa.</figcaption></figure>

Regarding the economic dimension, there were also similarities in the behavior of the indicators between the systems. However, the transmissibility indicator value, which refers to the capacity of the productive system to be transmitted to future generations was low. This indicated that although the livestock systems had successors, as verified in the social dimension, the future continuity of livestock was threatened by the low transmissibility of these systems. This low index indicated that, in the future, production unit (farm) division caused by the number of heirs could cause individual operating areas to become too small, creating a possibility for the subsequent abandonment of livestock activity. In this scenario, caused by lower transmissibility, it was projected that some of the cattle breeding establishments would be leased to third parties for other activities, especially agriculture, whereas others would be commercialized, decreasing the availability of native land in the region.

With respect to the environmental dimension, the sustainability index indicators be-
haved in a more heterogeneous way. The ALS presented higher index values for this
indicator than the other systems and lower values for the other environmental indicators.
This dualism revealed something of a paradox in the livestock systems with grain agricul-
ture, in that the operators scored high on environmental awareness but took little effective
action to preserve the rangeland fields or to reduce crop introduction to the biome.

The sustainability indicator indexes for the social, economic, and environmental dimensions are presented in Table 5, together with the *p*-values for the differences in the means between the three systems.
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Comparison of sustainability indicator index means for the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of Brazilian Pampa livestock systems.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>RLS</th><th>ILS</th><th>ALS</th><th>p-Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Social Sustainability</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Participation **</td><td>53.24 <sup>b</sup></td><td>62.43 <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>65.24 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of Life</td><td>62.34 <sup>a</sup></td><td>62.73 <sup>a</sup></td><td>64.68 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.720</td></tr><tr><td>Succession</td><td>84.86 <sup>a</sup></td><td>85.95 <sup>a</sup></td><td>86.34 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.969</td></tr><tr><td>Training</td><td>58.01 <sup>a</sup></td><td>64.32 <sup>a</sup></td><td>64.25 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.516</td></tr><tr><td>Economic Sustainability</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Capital Flow ***</td><td>50.54 <sup>b</sup></td><td>57.03 <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>61.46 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.059</td></tr><tr><td>Land Property</td><td>69.00 <sup>a</sup></td><td>72.61 <sup>a</sup></td><td>66.34 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.794</td></tr><tr><td>Financial Autonomy</td><td>67.56 <sup>a</sup></td><td>72.50 <sup>a</sup></td><td>64.87 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.502</td></tr><tr><td>Transmissibility</td><td>32.43 <sup>a</sup></td><td>37.29 <sup>a</sup></td><td>36.09 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.849</td></tr><tr><td>Production System *</td><td>68.37 <sup>a</sup></td><td>54.36 <sup>b</sup></td><td>59.47 <sup>b</sup></td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental Sustainability</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rangeland management **</td><td>59.43 <sup>a</sup></td><td>54.67 <sup>a,b</sup></td><td>46.60 <sup>b</sup></td><td>0.021</td></tr><tr><td>Crops *</td><td>91.14 <sup>a</sup></td><td>81.21 <sup>a</sup></td><td>38.99 <sup>b</sup></td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental Awareness</td><td>40.68 <sup>a</sup></td><td>42.43 <sup>a</sup></td><td>53.17 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.196</td></tr><tr><td>Exotic/Invasive Species</td><td>50.81 <sup>a</sup></td><td>60.81 <sup>a</sup></td><td>53.66 <sup>a</sup></td><td>0.453</td></tr></tbody></table>

Significant differences in the social dimension can be seen in the “Participation” index, with a higher value in the ALS compared to that in the RLS (*p* < 0.05). The “Participation” indicator refers to the level of participation of producers in collective spaces in general, such as classrooms, unions, associations. This result may be linked to the fact that grain farming involves more active learning events, thereby mobilizing ALS producers to participate in aspects such as technology, credit, and commercialization. This contrasts with the situation with respect to RLS, where there has been a history of individualistic (and not particularly collaborative) behavior in the Brazilian Pampa.

With respect to the economic dimension, there was a significant difference between the systems in the indexes for capital flow and production systems. The capital flow indicator refers to the origin of the family income, and in this context, the greater the proportion of income from the livestock system itself, the greater the economic sustainability of the system. The results indicated a higher capital flow value in the ALS compared to that in the RLS (*p* < 0.10), which showed that RLS operators were more dependent on non-agricultural income, with retirement, for example, affecting the ability of the livestock system by itself to remunerate the personal and enterprise's production demands. This resulted from the characteristically longer production cycles in the RLS, as opposed to the greater liquidity of the ALS, in that commercial grain production resulted in the ALS enjoying a comparatively abbreviated production cycle.

The RLS results showed a higher sustainability index for the production system indicator than those achieved by both the ILS and ALS (*p* < 0.01). Production system refers to the quality of production practices implemented in the system and includes measures related to sanitation, nutrition, reproduction, and animal welfare management. The higher the quality of these practices, the greater the economic sustainability of the system. This meant that the RLS embodied better practices compared to the other systems, showing greater concern for animal welfare, resistance to parasites, herd standardization, and sustainable land use.

Significant differences in the environmental dimension were seen in the indexes for Rangeland Management and Crops. The Rangeland Management indicator makes it possible to verify the degree of rangeland conservation, with reference to the management practices carried out under the RLS. Both the RLS and ILS yielded higher indexes for this indicator than the ALS (*p* < 0.05). This showed that, in the absence of grain agriculture, livestock systems presented better natural grasslands quality, less natural grasslands

<footnote>Different letters (a and b) indicate significant difference in sustainability index between the systems. * *p* < 0.01; ** *p* < 0.05; *** *p* < 0.10.</footnote>
degradation, and lower requirements for invasive species control, which led to higher environmental sustainability levels. Moreover, the RLS and ILS scored higher sustainability indexes for the Crops indicator (p < 0.01), the evidence of the greater level of anthropogenic intervention seen in the ALS that incorporated grain crops into the rangeland.

**4. Discussion**

In the context of the Brazilian Pampa biome and based on the historical analysis of the transformations in the natural grasslands exploitation, the results show that there is a dilemma of the rangeland. Thus, initially, we discuss the results found through the concept of the rangeland dilemma, observed through the sustainability assessment of the three production systems found in the Brazilian Pampa biome. Then, we address the need for public policies that value more sustainable livestock systems and minimize the rangeland dilemma, and outline strategies based on the concept of functional integrity.

**4.1. *The Rangeland Dilemma and Its Conditioning Factors*

In the rangeland, the RLS plays an important role from an environmental viewpoint, conserving the biodiversity of the Pampa biome [29,38,39]. However, this system has shown low socioeconomic efficiency when compared to other, more intensive systems, such as ALS (cattle raising based on cultivated pastures), or ILS (cattle raising and integrated soy or rice agricultural production) [47,48].

This conflict is called the rangeland dilemma. The historical transformations in the occupation of the Pampa biome in Brazil, the exploitation of the natural grasslands and consequent changes in socio-ecosystems, evidenced by the assessment of sustainability of livestock systems in this context, demonstrate the existence of this dilemma. When evaluating the three livestock systems characteristic of this biome, it appears that the Rangeland Livestock System has a higher environmental sustainability index, while presenting lower economic sustainability, with an emphasis on the indicator income and remuneration of the farm, when compared to other systems. This is the rangeland dilemma, which highlights the Rangeland Livestock System as the best alternative from the point of view of environmental preservation; however, the system is poorly sustainable from an economic point of view in terms of income, and therefore unattractive to the economic logic prevailing in the region.

Understanding this phenomenon required discussion of two of its main conditions: natural grassland degradation and the lower RLS economic efficiency. Natural grassland degradation by inadequate management was seen as a key contributor to the unsustainability of the livestock socio-ecosystem in the Pampa biome over the medium and long terms. From an environmental standpoint, degradation reduces rangeland biodiversity and creates an imbalance between plant species and the microfauna of the soil-pasture system. From the economic viewpoint, degradation progressively reduces fodder production, and consequently, herd productivity. Faced with this declining productivity, the producer implements an annual crop to eliminate invasive plants and recover some soil fertility by applying chemical fertilizers.

The pasture degradation problem becomes more acute owing to the difficulty in identifying its origins, considering that the process is relatively slow but insidious [1,49,50]. Typically, when the first signs of degradation are detected, it is already too late to realize a full recovery. The producer blames the degradation on either climatic conditions or temporary overgrazing done in response to a particularly high point demand. However, overgrazing is exactly what causes rangeland degradation, which occurs when the pasture cannot regenerate because of excessive periods of grazing, combined with insufficient rest periods. Likewise, artificially intensifying pasture without adequate fertilization not only degrades the field but also limits animal productivity, as soil nutrients become insufficient.

Recovering degraded grasslands before the damage becomes irreversible involves implementing a total halt to grazing—that is, removing grazers until the recovery process has begun. Then, the process could require mechanical interventions, such as soil
decompaction to facilitate infiltration, removal of invasive plant species, and green, organic, or chemical fertilization. Several recommendations aimed at facilitating rangeland and cultivated/mixed pasture recovery have been promoted in recent decades, including those by [47,51–54].

However, owing to the cost and complexity of rehabilitating degraded pastures, the alternative used widely to restore fodder productivity is to implement an annual crop; the income from this crop can supplement recovery costs while providing a new (although cultivated) pasture [49]. Thus, the rangeland has been largely degraded by implementing a culture of annual cropping, and it currently has limited regeneration capacity [55]. Hence, the RLS has evolved into the ILS, as natural grassland has been replaced by cultivated pasture. The entry of entrepreneurial agriculture based on annual crops—or on perennial crops such as tree plantations (eucalyptus and pine)—has appeared as the next phase, implemented in the search for higher productivity per area unit [38].

Therefore, we could confirm that rangeland degradation due to inadequate management, and its necessary recovery offered opportunities for a sequence of production intensification in multiple stages. These were initiated by introducing cultivated pasture and annual crops to maintain or improve farm productivity. The intensification could be characterized as a more economically efficient practice, although less environmentally sustainable, as corroborated by the sustainability indicators for the three systems evaluated in our work.

The corporate agricultural production, as demonstrated by the soybean crop, especially in the natural grasslands of the Brazilian Pampa Biome, is an environmentally unsustainable system. This fact was demonstrated by the results of this research, revealing a lower degree of environmental sustainability in Agricultural-Livestock System. This means that the biodiversity of the rangeland is not renewed in its fullness after soil disturbance or the application of systemic herbicides for the planting of grain crops, which makes the return of natural pastures impossible. In addition, commercial agricultural practice exploits the natural resources of soil and water, degrading and contaminating them, as it uses many resources/inputs external to the environment, mainly of chemical origin.

Rangeland degradation and the subsequent production intensification in the Pampa biome have been affected by recent changes in livestock farming. Over the generations, rural properties in the Brazilian Pampa have been divided among heirs, reducing the area available per family unit. This has often led to leasing or selling the smaller areas, while lifestyle changes have generated new demands, which in turn require higher levels of income generation from the land to survive and remain in the countryside. These conclusions were corroborated by the research results. The “Transmissibility” indicator gave rise to the lowest sustainability index in the three systems evaluated, revealing the low likelihood of the productive systems being transmitted intact to future generations. We also saw that the RLS displayed Capital Flow indicator values lower than those displayed by both the ILS and ALS; this indicates that RLS representatives were more dependent on non-agricultural incomes, such as retirement, to complement their personal remuneration and production demands.

Thus, the rangeland dilemma emerged from the tension between two development paradigms. First, we noted the paradigm of sustainable development, based on the conciliation of economic development with the preservation of natural resources, capable of guaranteeing the survival of future generations. In contrast, we noted economic growth promotion, in a production logic that was based on intensifying land and natural resources use, which meant seeking short-term increases in productivity, land income, foreign exchange generation, and exports.

The historical dynamics of the exploitation of the rangeland leads to the conclusion that the economic growth based on the intensification of land use has predominated in the Brazilian Pampa. Similarly, as found by [56] in the Pampa of Argentina, driving social, organizational, and economic changes, as well as the displacement of small producers out of agriculture. Thus, it is necessary to consider future policies that favor the
sustainable development, by integrating biome preservation and economic efficiency in
rangeland systems.

## 4.2. Public Policies and Strategies for the Sustainability of the Rangeland in the Brazilian Pampa Biome

Facilitating sustainability of the rangeland livestock production in the Pampa biome should be a fundamental principle for opinion-shapers and decision-makers at local and regional levels, as well as for the rural producers themselves. This has become evident from our research results, which suggested that RLS and ILS operators had the lowest rates of environmental awareness among the evaluated systems, despite contributing more to the conservation of the environment.

Therefore, prioritizing a paradigm of sustainable rangeland socio-ecosystem development means proposing comprehensive and efficient public policy measures with collective awareness and training programs for rural stakeholders that emphasize sustainable rangeland management. This is required even if the environmental importance of rangeland and the role of cattle raising in its conservation, are recognized. If there are no public actions or policies that allow them to be remunerated as guardians of this environment, Pampa biome ranchers will act individually in search of survival; that is, they will take actions seeking short-term success [24]. This lack of support from the State could be crucial for the future of the Brazilian Pampa and locally for stakeholders. It is urgent to neutralize the potential impact of agricultural expansion on biodiversity in the Pampa biome [46], and public policies could play a fundamental role in this.

The rangelands are still seen by the public and economic powers as large, empty, unproductive areas, which could be better used under ILS- or ALS-type operations to boost local, regional, and national economies. This is the production-driven logic of the rangeland dilemma, in which expansion of agriculture in the biome has been favored through specific public policies that favor commodity cultivation, such as the Brazilian rural credit policy [57]. This agriculture expansion scenario in Pampa-type biomes can be found at both national and global scales, and it has been reported for most natural pasture environments, both in Brazil, such as in the Cerrado (located in the highlands of Central Brazil and covering approximately 2 million km²) and in other countries and climate zones [1].

The current Brazilian Pampa scenario of integrating the rangelands with a production-
driven logic using natural resources is unsustainable from an environmental viewpoint, as
demonstrated herein. This means that rangeland biodiversity is not renewed after grain
cultivation, which has made it impossible to fully restore natural grasslands. Furthermore,
commercial agricultural practices exploit natural soil and water resources, degrading and
contaminating them by using unnatural inputs, mainly chemicals.

However, in support of the production-driven side of the rangeland dilemma, intensive agriculture in the Pampa biome has provided economic returns that have significantly transformed land income generation and the amount of land occupied with ALS. The capital flow indicator shows greater liquidity for ALS, a result of the higher percentage of income earned within the system, as opposed to the greater reliance on non-farm incomes from RLS. However, this research has shown that although ILS and ALS present higher capital flow, they do not offer greater economic sustainability compared to RLS. This is because the production system indicator shows higher values for RLS compared to the others.

Therefore, when considering the rangeland dilemma, in which the economic unsus-
tainability of the RLS is a major issue, [24] were optimistic in presenting livestock as a good
business. They underlined that it should be carried out with efficient resource management
programs, especially pasture management, and with appropriate resources, including
training producers and technicians. RLS system could be better managed enhancing an-
imal production and also ecosystem services, as soil C fixation, by adopting grasslands
management practices like forage allowances control or rotational stocking [47,58]. From
this perspective, [59] have highlighted the need for public policies that integrate the social
and environmental values of meat production in the Pampa biome to add economic value to regional products, conserve cultural traditions, and protect biodiversity in the natural grasslands of southern Brazil.

An alternative scenario would involve policies based on the concept of functional integrity, first proposed by [60] and later developed by [61]. These authors proposed a paradigm shift in natural resource management, which moves from discussing sustainability as a resource sufficiency concept to the idea of the functional integrity of resources. The heart of this concept lies in changing the view that natural resources are sufficient or not for future generations, to a more systemic view; the latter considers the human being as part of the system, which is reproduced and regenerated using techniques and practices involving all elements of the socio-ecosystem.

Functional integrity is therefore not limited to sustainable resource use but also involves producing new resources for the socio-ecosystem. Furthermore, based on this new paradigm, the various techniques and practices for sustainable rangeland management and their implementation, are positioned in the reproduction of the socio-ecosystem. This has been championed in the sustainable agronomic techniques recommended by [62–64], in the socio-technical practices proposed by [58] and [24], and in the “payment for ecosystem services” [1,65–68].

**5. Conclusions**

This research highlights the rangeland dilemma based on the evaluation of three types of livestock systems in the Brazilian Pampa biome. The evaluation shows that the rangeland production system presents, a greater environmental sustainability, but less economic sustainability, mainly in terms of income generation in comparison with the agricultural system, with the introduction of crops such as soybeans and rice. Although the first system is characterized as economically less efficient, the results of the research did not indicate a significant difference between the overall level of social and economic sustainability of the evaluated systems.

Although the rangeland exploitation offers higher environmental sustainability, this production system, if poorly managed, can cause degradation and endanger the rangeland biodiversity and its capacity to retain water and control erosion. This degradation has led to a cycle of land use intensification, with transformation of rangeland systems into intensive or agricultural systems. From this mosaic of livestock exploitation arises the concept of the rangeland dilemma.

The dilemma appears as a paradox that is formed in the dispute between a paradigm of economic growth, based on the logic of productivism, and a paradigm of sustainable development, based on the sustainability of socio-ecosystems. In this sense, an approach to develop policies for the Pampa biome, understanding its dimensions of functional integration, is to recognize the rangeland as a “common good,” as exemplified by some experiences in many regions globally. This strategy enhances the value of rangeland livestock farming as environmentally sustainable, while also being able to generate income for families and maintain the productive activity, thereby boosting local economies.

It is important to highlight that this study presents a methodology to evidence the rangeland dilemma, which has the potential to be tested in other contexts of land use transformations into livestock production systems that intensify production and introduce entrepreneurial agriculture. Therefore, it is possible to establish a fruitful dialog on development paradigms and search for strategies that unite economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S., R.V. and J.F.T.; methodology, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S., R.V., F.L.F.d.Q. and J.F.T.; software, J.G.A.V. and V.C.P.S.; validation, J.G.A.V. and V.C.P.S.; formal analysis, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S. and R.V.; investigation, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S., R.V. and J.F.T.; data curation, J.G.A.V. and V.C.P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S., R.V., F.L.F.d.Q., J.F.T. and M.P.M.; writing—review and editing, J.G.A.V., V.C.P.S., R.V., F.L.F.d.Q., J.F.T. and M.P.M.; visualization, J.G.A.V. and M.P.M.; supervision, J.G.A.V.; project administration, J.G.A.V. and V.C.P.S.; funding acquisition, J.G.A.V. and V.C.P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, FAPERGS, project 16/2551-0000264-9) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq, projects 441428/2017-7 and 428709/2018-4)—Brazil.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors acknowledge the FAPERGS and CNPq for providing financial support for this work.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## Appendix A

<table><caption>Table A1. Social, economic, and environmental sustainability indicators: composition and measurement.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Social</td><td rowspan="5">Education</td><td rowspan="5">15</td><td rowspan="5">Formal education</td><td>University graduate in agricultural area</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>University graduate</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural technician</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>High school</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Elementary school</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>No formal instruction</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Participation and traditional knowledge</td><td rowspan="5">10</td><td rowspan="5">Training courses</td><td>3 or more courses in the last 3 years</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2 or more courses in the last 3 years</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>1 or more courses in the last 3 years</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>No course</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Participation in association or groups of farmers/breeds</td><td>Yes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Employee training</td><td rowspan="5">10</td><td rowspan="5">Participation in trade unions</td><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>>2 courses in 3 years</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>1–2 courses in 3 years</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Family experience in livestock</td><td rowspan="5">10</td><td rowspan="5">No course</td><td>No course</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>>30 years</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>21 to 30 years</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>11 to 20 years</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>≤10 years</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A1. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="4">Importance of local knowledge, culture and tradition</td><td>Very high</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Home for owners</td><td>None</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bathrooms of owners</td><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>With cesspool</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Number of bedrooms</td><td>No cesspool</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>≥2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">House for employees <sup>1</sup></td><td>&lt;2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bathrooms of employees</td><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>With cesspool</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Bedrooms of employees <sup>2</sup></td><td>No cesspool</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>1 employee per bedroom</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2 employees per bedroom</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;2 employees per bedroom</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Quality of life</td><td rowspan="12">50</td><td rowspan="5">Quality of access to water and electricity</td><td>Excellent</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Very bad</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Rural road conditions</td><td>No access to water and electricity</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Excellent</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Quality of health and education services in rural area</td><td>Very bad</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Quality of infrastructure for working with cattle (corrals, cattle crush, wires, scales, etc.).</td><td>Good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>No infrastructure</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Biweekly rest for employees</td><td>Yes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A1. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="15">Economic</td><td rowspan="15">Succession</td><td rowspan="15">25</td><td rowspan="15">Existence and willingness of successors to continue on the farm</td><td>Three media</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Two media</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>One media</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Successors willing to continue</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Successors unwilling to continue</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>No successor—owner under 40 years old</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>No successor—owner 40–60 years old</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>No successor—owner > 60 years old</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>100% of livestock production</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>80–100% of livestock production</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>70–80% of livestock production</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>60–70% of livestock production</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>50–60% of livestock production</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;50% of livestock production</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Capital flow</td><td rowspan="10">20</td><td rowspan="10">Source of income (livestock income versus non-farm income)</td><td>None</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Low Incidence</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Medium Incidence</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>High Incidence</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>No boar Presence</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Boar presence without economic loss</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Boar presence with economic loss</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>In all paddocks</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Most of the paddocks</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Some paddocks</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Few paddocks</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Production system</td><td rowspan="5">30</td><td rowspan="5">Antiparasitic resistance</td><td>None</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Very high</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A1. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="3">Need for energy supplementation</td><td>No supplementation</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Up to 15% total diet</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>more than 15%</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Improved natural grassland</td><td>Up to 20% of the area</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>21% to 30% of the area</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>More than 30% of the area</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Cultivated pasture</td><td>No cultivated pasture</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Up to 20% of the area</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>More than 20% of the area</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Herd breed</td><td>breed defined</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>breed crosses</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>breedundefined</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Conditions for access to agricultural inputs</td><td>Very good</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Regular</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>No access</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Agronomic and veterinary technical assistance</td><td>Permanent</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Often</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Regularly</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Occasionally</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Never</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="5">Land property</td><td>100%</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>90–99%</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>80–89%</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>70–79%</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>60–69%</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Financial autonomy</td><td>50–59%</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;50%</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>0%</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>1–10%</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Indebtedness level (Annual debt/ livestock revenue)</td><td>11–20%</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>21–30%</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>&gt;30%</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Economic management</td><td>Yes, with fiscal and management accounting</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Yes, with fiscal accounting</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A1. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10"></td><td rowspan="5">Transmissibility</td><td rowspan="5">15</td><td rowspan="5">Land by successor</td><td>Greater than 300 hectares</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Between 201 and 300 hectares</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Between 151 and 200 hectares</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Below 150 hectares</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Has no successors</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Rangeland conditions and management</td><td rowspan="5">65</td><td rowspan="5">Rangeland degradation level</td><td>Above 10 cm</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Between 5 and 10 cm</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Below 5 cm</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Coverage greater than 90%, no invasive sp.</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Coverage 70 and 90%, no invasive sp.</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Environmental</td><td rowspan="5">20</td><td rowspan="5">Presence and control of invasive plants</td><td>Coverage 70 and 90%, up to 10% invasives</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Coverage 50 and 70%, up to 20% invasives</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Coverage less than 50%, with invasives</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>No need to control</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Mowing Control</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Cultures</td><td rowspan="5">20</td><td rowspan="5">Crop incorporation time</td><td>Chemical Control</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Without control</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>No cultivation</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Consolidated (over 5 years)</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Recent</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10"></td><td rowspan="10"></td><td rowspan="10"></td><td rowspan="10"></td><td>100% of the area uncultivated</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>90–99% of the area uncultivated</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>80–89% of the area uncultivated</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>70–79% of the area uncultivated</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>60–69% of the area uncultivated</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>50–59% of the area uncultivated</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>≤50% of the area uncultivated</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table A1. *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimensions</th><th>Indicators</th><th>Weight</th><th>Variables</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Weight</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Environmental conscientiousness and legislation</td><td rowspan="10">10</td><td rowspan="3">Correct disposal of agrochemical packaging</td><td>Ever</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>do not discard</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Environmental licenses for fuels, dams, weirs, etc.</td><td>Totality</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Partiality</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Farm garbage—separation and delivery for recycling</td><td>Ever</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Sometimes</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Does not recycle</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Invasive/exotic animal species</td><td rowspan="3">5</td><td rowspan="3">Presence of predators —wild boar</td><td>No presence</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Presence, no attacks</td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td>Presence with attack</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

1. Dong, S.; Kassam, J.K.A.; Tourrand, F.; Boone, R.B. Building Resilience of Human-Natural Systems of Pastoralism in the Developing World. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-30732-9 (accessed on 1 March 2018).

2. Miñarro, F.O.; Ortiz, U.M.; Bilenca, D.N.; Olmos, F. Río de la Plata Grasslands or Pampas & Campos (Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil). 2008. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/pastizales_templados_de_sudamerica.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2018).

3. Andrade, B.O.; Marchesi, E.; Burkart, S.; Setubal, R.; Lezama, F.; Perelman, S.; Boldrini, I.I. Vascular plant species richness and distribution in the Río de la Plata grasslands. *Bot. J. Linn. Soc.* **2018**, *188*, 250–256. [CrossRef]

4. Boldrini, I.I. A flora dos Campos do Rio Grande do Sul. In *Campos Sulinos: Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade*; Pillar, V.D., Ed.; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2009; pp. 63–77.

5. Bencke, G.A. Diversidade e conservação da fauna dos Campos do Sul do Brasil. In *Campos Sulinos: Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade*; Pillar, V.D., Ed.; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2009; pp. 101–121.

6. Martinez, E. *Radiografia de la Pampa*; Losada: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1946.

7. Moraes, M.I. *La Pradera Perdida: Historia y Economía del Agro Uruguayo: Una Visión de Largo Plazo*, 1760–1970; Linardi y Risso: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2008.

8. Saravia, A. Eleveurs Gauchos et Société du Nord de l'Uruguay Face aux Changements Globaux. Ph.D. Thesis, AgroParisTech, Paris, France, 2016.

9. Morales, H.G.; Coronato, F.C.; Carvalho, S.A.; Saravia, A.; Schweitzer, A.; Burlamaqui, A.B.; Tourrand, J.F. Building new human-natural systems for sustainable pasture management in South-America. In *Building Resilience of Coupled Human-Natural Pastoral Systems in the Developing World: Exploration of Interdisciplinary Strategies for Sustainable Pastoralism*; Dong, S., Kassam, K.A., Tourrand, J.F., Boone, R.B., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016.

10. Waquil, P.D.; Neske, M.Z.; Matte, A.; Borba, M.F.S. (Eds.) *Pecuária Familiar no Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil*; Editora da UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2016.

11. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA). *Folder Pampa: Conhecimentos e Descobertas*; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2019.

12. Saravia, A.; Gedouin, M.; Arbeleche, P.; Morales, H.; Capdevila, L.; Guibert, M.; Tourrand, J.F. Les producteurs gauchos du Nord de l'Uruguay face à l'agrobusiness globalisé. In *Autrepart, Quand les Sud investissent dans les Sud*; Magrin, G., Mesclier, E., Piveteau, A., Eds.; Presses de Sciences Po.: Paris, France, 2015.

13. Nicoloso, C.S.; Silveira, V.C.P.; Quadros, F.L.F.; Filho, R.C.C. Typology of family livestock production systems in the Pampa biome using the MESMIS method. *Semin. Ciências Agrárias (Online)* **2019**, *40*, 3249–3267. [CrossRef]

14. Silva, C.S.D.; Viana, J.G.A. Instituições na pecuária de corte e sua influência sobre o avanço da sojicultura na Campanha Gaúcha-Brasil. *Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural* **2020**, *58*, 1–20. [CrossRef]

15. Alonso, J.A.F.; Benetti, M.D.; Bandeira, P.S. *Crescimento Econômico da Região Sul do Rio Grande do Sul: Causas e Perspectivas*; Fundação de Economia e Estatística Siegfried Emanuel Heuser: Porto Alegre, Brasil, 1994.

16. de Verschoore Filho, S., Jr. Metade Sul: Uma Análise das Políticas Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Regional no Rio Grande do Sul. Master's Thesis, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2000.

<footnote n="1">¹ In case the employees live in the neighborhood of the farm, the maximum weight of the item is attributed (2 points). ² In case the employees are a couple and live in only one room, the maximum weight of the item is given (2 points).</footnote>
17. Alonso, J.A.F. Persistência das desigualdades regionais no RS: Velhos problemas, soluções convencionais e novas formulações. *Indic. Econôm. FEE* **2006**, 33, 101–114.

18. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Pesquisa Agrícola Municipal. 2020. Available online: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/pam/tabelas (accessed on 15 October 2020).

19. Silveira, V.C.P.; González, J.A.; Fonseca, E.L. Land use changes after the period commodities rising price in the Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. *Ciência Rural* **2017**, *47*, 1–7. [CrossRef]

20. Berndt, A.; Tomkins, N.W. Measurement and mitigation of methane emissions from beef cattle in tropical grazing systems: A perspective from Australia and Brazil. *Animal* **2013**, *7*, 363–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21. Opio, C.; Gerber, P.; Mottet, A.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; MacLeod, M.; Vellinga, T.; Henderson, B.; Steinfeld, H. *Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ruminant Supply Chains—A Global Life Cycle Assessment*; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013.

22. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. *Livestock's Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options*; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2006.

23. Nabinger, C.; Miguel, L.A.; Sanguine, E.; Netto, C.G.M.; Waquil, P.D.; Schneider, S. *Diagnóstico de Sistemas de Produção de Bovinocultura de Corte do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil (2003–2004)*; Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2005.

24. Nabinger, C.; Ferreira, E.T.; Freitas, A.K.; Carvalho, P.C.F.; Sant'anna, D.M. Produção animal com base no campo nativo: Aplicações de resultados de pesquisa. In *Campos Sulinos: Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade*; Pillar, V.D.P., Müller, S.C., Castilhos, Z.M.S., Jacques, A.V.A., Eds.; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2009; pp. 175–198.

25. de Miguel, L.A.; Netto, C.G.A.M.; Nabinger, C.; Sanguiné, E.; Waquil, P.D.; Schneider, S. Caracterização socioeconômica e produtiva da bovinocultura de corte no estado do Rio Grande do Sul. *Rev. Estud. Debate* **2007**, *14*, 95–125.

26. Masera, O.R.; Astier, M.; López-Ridaura, S. *Sustentabilidade y Manejo de Recursos Naturales: El Marco de Evaluación MESMIS*; MundiPrensa-GIRA-UNAM: Mexico City, Mexico, 1999.

27. ORTHOPTERA. Pampa. Biota de Orthoptera do Brasil. 2020. Available online: http://www.orthoptera.com.br/pt-BR/bioma/pampa (accessed on 15 October 2020).

28. Azevedo, L.F. Saberes e Práticas Tradicionais: Uma Análise do Modo de Apropriação da Natureza Pelos Pecuaristas Familiares da Serra do Sudeste RS. Santa Maria. Master's Thesis, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil, 2013.

29. Cruz, R.C.; Guadagnin, D.L. Uma pequena história ambiental do Pampa: Proposta de uma abordagem baseada na relação entre perturbação e mudança. In *A Sustentabilidade da Região da Campanha—RS: Práticas e Teorias a Respeito das Relações entre Ambiente, Sociedade, Cultura e Políticas Públicas*; Costa, B.P., Quoos, J.H., Dickel, M.A.G., Eds.; Editora UFSM: Santa Maria, Brazil, 2012.

30. Alberdi, M.T.; Prado, J.L. El registro de Hippidion Owen, 1869 y Equus (Amerhippus) Hoffstetter, 1950 (Mammalia, Perissodactyla) en America del Sur. *Ameghiniana* **1992**, *29*, 265–284.

31. Oliveira, E.V. Mamíferos xenarthra (edentata) do quaternário do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. *Ameghiniana* **1996**, *33*, 65–75.

32. Bellanca, E.T.; Suertegaray, D.M.A. Sítios Arqueológicos e Areais no Sudoeste do Rio Grande do Sul. *Mercator-Rev. Geogr. UFC* **2003**, *2*, 99–114.

33. Sherer, C.S.; Da Rosa, A.A.S. Um equídeo fóssil do pleistoceno de Alegrete, RS, Brasil. *Pesqui. Geociências* **2003**, *30*, 33–38. [CrossRef]

34. Zarth, P.A.; Gerhardt, M. Uma história ambiental do Pampa do Rio Grande do Sul. In *Lavouras de Destriuição: A Imposição do Consenso*; Teixeira Filho, A., Ed.; Livraria Mundial: Pelotas, Brazil, 2009.

35. Fortes, A.B. *Compêndio da História do Rio Grande do Sul*; Sulina: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1981.

36. Pesavento, S.J. *História do Rio Grande do Sul*; Mercado Aberto: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1982.

37. Rodrigues, A.L. O Latifúndio no Rio Grande do Sul, Velhas Formas na Funcionalidade de Novos Atores Econômicos na Microrregião Geográfica da Campanha Central. Master's Thesis, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil, 2006.

38. Overbeck, G.E.; Müller, S.C.; Fidelis, A.; Pfadenhauer, J.; Pillar, V.D.; Blanco, C.C.; Boldrini, I.I.; Both, R.; Forneck, E.D. Brazil's neglected biome: The South Brazilian Campos. *Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst.* **2007**, *9*, 101–116. [CrossRef]

39. Pillar, V.D.P.; Müller, S.C.; Castilhos, Z.D.S.; Jacques, A.V.A. CAMPOS SULINOS. Available online: http://ecoqua.ecologia.ufrgs.br/arquivos/Livros/CamposSulinos.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2018).

40. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Censo Agropecuário. 2017. Available online: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/pesquisa/censo-agropecuario/censo-agropecuario-2017 (accessed on 15 October 2020).

41. Astier, M.L.; García-Barrios, L.; Galván-Miyoshi, Y.; González-Esquivel, C.E.; Masera, O.R. Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural resource management systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS program (1995–2010). *Ecol. Soc.* **2012**, *17*, 25. [CrossRef]

42. López-Ridaura, S.; Masera, O.R.; Astier, M. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. *Ecol. Indic.* **2002**, *2*, 135–148. [CrossRef]

43. Bowen, S.; Zapata, A.V. Geographical indications, terroir, and socioeconomic and ecological sustainability: The case of tequila. *J. Rural Stud.* **2009**, *25*, 108–119. [CrossRef]

44. Anderson, D.R.; Sweeney, D.J.; Williams, T.A.; Camm, J.D.; Cochran, J.J.; Freeman, J.; Shoesmith, E. *Statistics for Business and Economics*; Cengage Learning: Hampshire, UK, 2020.
45. Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Díez-Unquera, B.; Ruiz, R.; Villalba, D.; Molina, E.; Joy, M.; Olaizola, A.; Bernués, A. An integrated sustainability assessment of mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification. *Agric. Syst.* **2012**, *105*, 46–56. [CrossRef]

46. Oliveira, U.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Paglia, A.P.; Brescovit, A.D.; de Carvalho, C.J.; Silva, D.P.; Stehmann, J.R. Biodiversity conservation gaps in the Brazilian protected areas. *Nat. Sci. Rep.* **2017**, *7*, 1–9. [CrossRef]

47. Carvalho, P.D.F.; Fisher, V.; Santos, D.D.; Ribeiro, A.M.; Quadros, F.D.; Castilhos, Z.M.; Poli, C.H.E.C.; Monteiro, A.L.; Nabinger, C.; Genro, T.C.M.; et al. Produção animal no bioma campos sulinos. *Braz. J. Anim. Sci.* **2006**, *35*, 156–202.

48. Baldi, G.; Paruelo, J.M. Land-use and land cover dynamics in South American temperate grasslands. *Ecol. Soc.* **2008**, *13*, 6. [CrossRef]

49. Veiga, J.B.; Tourrand, J.F.; Piketty, M.G.; Poccard-Chapuis, R.; Alves, A.M.; Thales, C.M. Expansão e Trajetórias da Pecuária na Amazônia: Estado do Pará; Editora da Universidade de Brasília: Brasília, Brazil, 2004.

50. Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Briske, D.D. Grand challenges for resilience-based management of rangelands. *Rangel. Ecol. Manag.* **2012**, *65*, 654–663. [CrossRef]

51. Bureau of Rangeland Management (BRM). *Drewsey Rangeland Management Program*; US Department of Interior: Burns, OR, USA, 1980.

52. Bessieres, M.; Barat, X. *Manuel Technique: Le Pâturage Tournant. Dynamique en Elevages Herbivores. Fondements, Implantation et Gestion du Pâturage Tournant Dynamique*; INNOV-Eco² & AG2M: Paris, France, 2014.

53. Do Carmo, M.; Cardozo, G.; Jaurena, M.; Soca, P. Demonstrating control of forage allowance for beef cattle grazing Campos grassland in Uruguay to improve system productivity. *Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop.* **2019**, *7*, 35–47. [CrossRef]

54. Jaurena, M.; Lezama, F.; Salvo, L.; Cardozo, G.; Ayala, W.; Terra, J.; Nabinger, C. The dilemma of improving native grasslands by overseeding legumes: Production intensification or diversity conservation. *Rangel. Ecol. Manag.* **2016**, *69*, 35–42. [CrossRef]

55. Pallarés, O.R.; Berretta, E.J.; Maraschin, G.E. The South American campos ecosystem. In *Grasslands of the World*; Suttie, J., Reynolds, S.G., Batello, C., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005.

56. Urcola, H.A.; De Sartre, X.A.; Veiga, I., Jr.; Elverdin, J.; Albaladejo, C. Land tenancy, soybean, actors and transformations in the pampas: A district balance. *J. Rural. Stud.* **2015**, *39*, 32–40. [CrossRef]

57. Fagundes, T.T.; Viana, J.G.A.; Troian, A. Evolução do crédito rural no Rio Grande do Sul entre 2006 e 2016. In *56 Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia Rural*; SOBER: Campinas, Brazil, 2018.

58. Behling, H.; Jeske-Pieruschka, V.; Schüler, L.; Pillar, V.D.P. Dinâmica nos campos do Sul do Brasil durante o quaternário tardio. In *Campos Sulinos: Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade*; Pillar, V.D.P., Müller, S.C., Castilhos, Z.D.S., Jacques, A.V.A., Eds.; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2009; pp. 13–25.

59. Delanoy, M.; Viana, J.G.A.; Troian, A. Sustentabilidade de sistemas pecuários no Rio Grande do Sul e perspectivas de políticas públicas regionais. *Rev. Amaz. Organ. Sustentabilidade* **2020**, *9*, 141–160. [CrossRef]

60. Thompson, P.B. Sustainability as a norm. *Soc. Philos.* **1996**, *2*, 75–93.

61. Hubert, B.; Izon, R. Institutionalizing understandings: From resource sufficiency to functional integrity. In *A Paradigm Shift in Livestock Management: From Resource Sufficiency to Functional Integrity*; Kammili, T., Hubert, B., Tourrand, J.F., Eds.; Cardère Editor: Lirac, France, 2011.

62. Gardner, A.L.; Alvim, M.J. *Manejo de Pastagem*; Documento de Pesquisa; Embrapa Gado de Leite: Coronel Pacheco, Brazil, 1985.

63. Evangelista, A.R. *Formação e Manejo de Pastagem Tropicais*; Boletim Extensão 041; Embrapa Gado de Leite: Coronel Pacheco, Brazil, 1991.

64. Diaz-Filho, M.B. *Uso de Pastagens para a Produção de Bovinos de Corte no Brasil: Passado, Presente e Futuro*; Documentos Embrapa; Amazônia Oriental: Belém, Brazil, 2016.

65. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. *Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities*; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.

66. Favaro, A.K.M.D.I.; Rossin, A.C. Payments for environmental services that contribute to environmental health, a local level analysis. *Saúde Soc.* **2014**, *23*, 216–226. [CrossRef]

67. Parron, L.M.; Fidalgo, E.C.C.; Luz, A.P.; Campanha, M.M.; Turetta, A.P.D.; Pedreira, B.C.C.G.; Prado, R.B. Research on ecosystem services in Brazil: A systematic review. *Rev. Ambiente Água* **2019**, *14*, 1–17. [CrossRef]

68. Vargas, L.P.; da Vargas, A.F.C.; Silveira, V.C.P. Ecosystem services and production systems of family cattle farms: An analysis of animal production in Pampa Biome. *Semin. Ciências Agrárias* **2020**, *41*, 661–676. [CrossRef]