You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

16 December 2025

Sustainable Transformation Pathways in Tropical Beef Systems: A Global Scoping Review (2019–2025) with Insights from Indonesia

,
,
and
1
Business Management, School of Business, IPB University, Bogor 16128, Indonesia
2
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
3
Bioenergy and Surfactant Research Centre, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2025, 17(24), 11252;https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411252
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agriculture, Aquaculture and Livestock Practices: Enhancing Food Supply Chains for a Resilient Future
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Indonesia’s beef cattle sector plays a central role in achieving food security, enhancing rural livelihoods, and fostering economic resilience. However, it faces fragmented governance, import dependence, and persistent challenges of low productivity levels. To capture the evolving evidence base, this study conducted a scoping review of 61 peer-reviewed publications (2019–2025) drawn from six major databases. This study employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Protocol and Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. Key patterns, advances, and gaps, along with evidence and research recommendations, were identified using the PAGER analytical approach. The dominant themes include production efficiency, environmental sustainability, policy, market linkages, and technological innovation. The results show that most studies employed quantitative or system modelling designs. In the global literature, multidimensional sustainability frameworks have shifted away from production-centric ones, with regional studies highlighting different emphases, such as carbon metrics in South America and market access and livelihood resilience in Asia and Africa. Integrated crop, livestock, and forestry systems; legume-based nutrient management; genotype-specific feeding and breeding; and enabling policies within inclusive markets were revealed through the synthesis of the PAGER framework as four calculated levers for sustainable transformation. However, actors inadequately integrate feed, genetic, climate interactions, and governance mechanisms. According to this review, technological innovation must align with adaptive governance. Climate-resilient, low-carbon beef systems also require the development of inclusive institutional frameworks. Indonesia’s experience demonstrates the benefits of integrating science, policy, and the market to improve productivity, resource stewardship, and equity in tropical livestock systems, thereby enhancing a resilient agri-food supply chain in Indonesia.

1. Introduction

Beef cattle farming is perceived as an important sector in national food systems, contributing to economic growth, rural development, and food security [1,2]. Within the last 20 years, the demand for beef in Indonesia has increased due to population growth and an increase in per capita income. Local production has not kept pace with the rapid growth in demand. Consumption relies on imports (mainly from Australia) to meet the national demand, creating a structural reliance on imports. Hadi and Chung [3] quantified this structural gap between domestic supply and national demand in recent decades using an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. Import demand is influenced by relative price competitiveness and domestic supply shortages. Comparing relative governance, policy, and vulnerability to food security, trade dependence, and rural livelihood sustainability among other tropical countries, especially in Africa and Southeast Asia [4], suggests that there is a structural disadvantage for beef sector resilience, rural livelihood diversification, and the national food security system. Addressing this gap is critical for the sustainable transformation of the Indonesian beef system into an economically viable, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable system.
However, in Indonesia, centralised breeding, import quotas, and feedlot construction to achieve beef self-sufficiency [1,5] have had mixed results across provinces, where local characteristics and political priorities differ. The national Swasembada Daging Sapi policy was designed to curtail beef imports to increase local production, but provinces such as East Java and South Kalimantan have imported feeder cattle to ensure economic occupancy rates in feedlots. This mismatch between national restrictions and regional economic priorities exemplifies a recurring policy conflict that hampers the coherent implementation of the policy. Provincial governments have also invested in feedlot development, yet these fragmented initiatives often fail to align with national strategies. Policy fragmentation inhibits the realisation of synergies across government levels and distorts the support provided to smallholder farmers [3].
Community-based breeding programs that utilise participatory breeding, local ownership, incremental improvement of genetic material, and shared breeding objectives [6] are better suited for smallholder farmers. The organised genomic improvement of indigenous genetic resources and the more efficient use of local resources on the farm could effectively increase productivity per unit of input while lowering environmental pressures and gradually leading to the sustainable intensification of the national herd [7].
The beef industry is particularly at risk of endemic and transboundary animal diseases. Bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) has been recorded in several provinces of China, which obstructs the beef industry’s productivity and rule-making. Importing live cattle free from quarantine and without trace-back requirements can introduce animal diseases [8,9] into the system and affect self-sufficiency, the domestic market, and system resilience. The effects of fragmentation include tropical production systems, which can be impacted in terms of productivity, biosecurity, and economic development of stakeholder groups above and below the value chain. However, the term tropical beef is vaguely defined and poses a challenge for communication and marketing. In this study, it is defined as beef produced in tropical agroecosystems between 23.5° N and 23.5° S latitude, produced mostly by smallholders in mixed crop-livestock systems of tropical countries, in pasture-based systems, and in regions with climate variability and low interaction with premium beef markets [10]. This review uses the term tropical beef to refer to beef from livestock reared in tropical regions of the world, which are exposed to heat stress, pasture quality, and production systems that are different from those in temperate countries, in a market and policy environment influenced by productivity, biosecurity, and import dependence.
New evidence suggests Sustainability Intensification (SI) in tropical beef system can be adopted for the instance of constrained land and resource. Studies in Indonesia have generally shown that the improvement of forage and feeding practices on existing land is able to increase productivity and income without major expansion of areas [11]. This confirms that SI enhances resource efficiency and improves agroeconomic results for smallholder production systems aimed at resource-poor farmers [12]. New evidence suggests that SI may be an appropriate option for upgrading tropical resource-poor cattle systems. Simultaneously, forage-based and feed quality interventions have been demonstrated to generate significant production increases and households in Indonesia without the need for major land development [11]. This is supported by the SI improving input-use efficiencies and eco-economic performance (world average productivity), sometimes in smallholder-dominated production systems [12]. In Southeast Asia, systemic innovations may be one viable solution for smallholder farmers who are unable to invest in more expensive agroecological or regenerative practices, influenced by the local climate, market, and socio-institutional conditions [13]. Further, the global consensus is that SI will be a necessary precondition for food security but is not sufficient to halt further land-use changes and result in environmental degradation [14]. Sustainable Intensification can also improve rural households, production, and ecosystem trade-offs, even with the limited availability of land and resources in tropical regions [15,16,17].
These interrelated issues have been considered in solutions that increase feed efficiency, optimise manure management, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, integrate agroforestry and the circular economy to improve resource use and food security, and apply systems-thinking approaches to simulate feedback loops across feed, environmental, and policy domains [18,19]. The systems perspective emphasises the interdependence of production, environmental, and governance restrictions in shaping sector resilience. Most studies below focus on policy, disease control, or technology specifically, not their interdependence, which is key for the durable, deep transitions that sustain prevention [3,6,9,10,18,19,20].
This synthesis bridges the fragmentation by combining policy coherence, animal health management, and technology adoption in Indonesia’s beef cattle sector’s farming system based on the PRISMA-ScR [21] protocol, Arksey and O’Malley’s [22] framework, and a PAGER [23] synthesis lens. Structural bottlenecks include incoherent governance and vulnerability to animal diseases. Digital innovation, breeding, development, and diffusion of future technology, and circular and flattening systems were recognised as opportunities. Sustainable intensification is explained here as a realistically attractive option and possible solution because it is context-sensitive and seeks to achieve higher productivity efficiently and sustainably with less input use. Focusing on community empowerment, diversified livelihoods, landscape agroecological interventions, and market incentives, this study provides evidence-based recommendations, grounded in policy analysis, animal health, and agricultural technology, on how to accomplish a progression toward a more coherent, inclusive, and sustainable transformation of Indonesia’s beef systems, with lessons relevant to many other tropical countries facing similar governance, health, and technology trade-offs.

2. Methods

This study used a scoping review process, following the PRISMA-ScR and Arksey and O’Malley guidelines to develop interventions for the beef cattle industry. Next, the PAGER framework was applied to structure the findings into patterns, advances, gaps, evidence for practice, and research recommendations. Finally, the steps of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist [24].

2.1. Search Strategy

A comprehensive scoping review was conducted by scoping the literature in Scopus, Semantic Scholar, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar, which specified beef cattle that produced beef, created beef policies, and sustained beef production. The inclusion criteria were English-language, peer-reviewed, open-access articles published from January 2019 to 31 March 2025 focusing on recent comparable literature with adequate breadth and depth. We excluded conference proceedings, theses, book chapters, and non-peer-reviewed reports and included conference proceedings indexed and/or peer-reviewed in the selected databases, and the trends in tropical beef production and/or governance in the post-COVID-19 era. The key terms “policy”, “beef cattle production”, and “feedlot competitiveness” and the Boolean operators AND and OR as connectors to combine the key terms. The results consisted of peer-reviewed journal articles, policy papers, and working papers, all of which were written in English. Prior to data extraction, the availability and peer-review status of each article were confirmed. The search strings, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and database-specific rationale are listed in Table 1. Records were exported to Zotero and Mendeley for organised screening, removal of duplicates, and bibliographic management. Additional studies were identified using backward and forward citation tracking. The titles and abstracts of potentially relevant studies were screened to determine whether they met the scoping review’s inclusion criteria, and the full texts of the studies were reviewed when necessary. Duplicates were eliminated, and papers not aligned with the policy coherence, sustainability, or tropical beef system criteria were excluded. The structured and reproducible search protocol allowed for a thorough search and ensured the methodological transparency of the results. Further, the protocol was prepared according to the guidelines of PRISMA 2020 and Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework to improve the review.
Table 1. Database, search string, and applied filters for the entries included in the literature search.
The methods used in this scoping review are outlined in Figure 1. The stages of identifying the research problem, searching for literature, selecting the study, charting data, and synthesising and reporting data phases are part of the hybrid approach of the PRISMA-ScR framework supplemented by Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, as well as PAGER.
Figure 1. Methodological framework of the scoping review integrating PRISMA-ScR, Arksey and O’Malley, and PAGER frameworks.

2.2. Study Selection

Search and selection processes followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. In total, 666 records were identified from six databases: Scopus, Semantic Scholar, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar. After removing 124 duplicates, 542 titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility. Of the 416 excluded studies, 182 were excluded because they did not address policy or sustainability themes, 137 because of a non-tropical geographic focus, 61 were non-peer-reviewed sources, and 36 were inaccessible or had incomplete records. This resulted in 123 full-text articles being assessed, of which, 61 met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised. Studies were excluded if they did not address trade, post-COVID, resilience, or sustainability, or were not geographically relevant. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2) illustrates the study selection process. It provides a comprehensive overview of each step involved in the identification and selection of pertinent studies. The identified studies were meticulously evaluated, and duplicates were removed. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts to determine eligibility. Full-text articles were retrieved and analysed based on the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles included in this study. A third reviewer was consulted in cases of discrepancies between the two reviewers.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 3 maps the locations of the 61 studies, dividing them by space and topics to assess whether the survey is geographically biased. The findings show that most studies are concentrated in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Recognised contributions have also been made in Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania.
Figure 3. Geographical and thematic distribution of the 61 reviewed papers (2019–2025).

2.3. Eligible Criteria

The inclusion criteria were defined to include only studies that addressed policy coherence, sustainability governance, and resilience in tropical beef systems to align with the objectives of this review. Papers were included in this scoping review if they adhered to the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 2, which were based on publication type, scope, geography and theme. Only investigations that met all the inclusion criteria were subjected to full-text analysis; therefore, the body of evidence presented is peer-reviewed and of high quality, resulting in a coherent description of the post-COVID sustainable transformation of tropical beef cattle systems.
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.4. Data Extraction

Text data from the identified and screened studies were extracted and analysed using the PAGER framework. Findings related to systems-based beef services were interpreted using a checklist and data extraction form (Table 3) according to the framework outlined in the PRISMA 2020 (Supplementary Materials S3—PRISMA 2020 checklist). The articles were de-identified and analysed using qualitative content analysis techniques. The articles were coded by value chain dimension (production, trading, marketing, policymaking, sustainability assurance), themes linked to each dimension (post-COVID recovery, resilience, innovation, and policy integration), and literature-derived determinants (drivers, barriers, and enablers) to recognise trends and gaps and synthesise the evidence to make recommendations for practice and research using the PAGER framework. The full article summaries are presented in Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials. The findings revealed systemic barriers and opportunities for sustainable beef production and trade by ensuring transparent data and reliability through independent reviews. In this review, screening, data extraction, and selection were guided by the PRISMA selection process. Disagreements between the two reviewers were discussed or referred to a third reviewer. The data were thematically synthesised in line with the principles of the PAGER framework and are presented under Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice, and Research Recommendations. The improved methodological transparency, rigor, and replicability of the PRISMA-ScR and PAGER frameworks align with best practices for scoping studies focused on sustainability.
Table 3. Data extraction.

2.5. Critical Appraisal of Included Studies

The quality of the studies included in the review was assessed for reliability and validity using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for the study design. Quantitative studies were rated based on randomisation and blinding. Qualitative and policy studies were rated based on analytical rigor, interpretation trustworthiness, and policy relevance. The application of the yes/no criteria is described in detail in the assessment of each study included. Studies with a score of 50% or lower were rejected. Two authors independently appraised the studies and resolved differences through discussion and consensus agreement. The appraisal criteria (Table 4) and results (Table 5 and Figure 4) highlight the prioritisation of studies with strong, clear methods for the final synthesis.
Table 4. Critical appraisal criteria for included studies.
Table 5. Critical appraisal representative studies (Q1–Q10 criteria).
Figure 4. Critical appraisal results of the included studies across ten quality domains (Q1–Q10).
All review methods followed the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and PRISMA-ScR, ensuring clarity, rigor, and completeness in alignment with sustainability requirements. The use of the PRISMA-ScR and PAGER frameworks strengthened the robustness of the results. They also enhance the policy relevance of these results. This allowed for actionable recommendations to improve animal welfare and sustainability in tropical beef systems, as well as to strengthen policy coherence. The Supplementary Materials provide resources for improved study transparency, reproducibility and coherence. These include the PRISMA checklist (Supplementary Materials S3). The detailed step-by-step protocol following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework is provided in Supplementary Materials S1, data search strings (Table 1) and PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2).

2.6. Data Analysis

Drawing on the outline of Arksey and O’Malley, data charting comprised a systematic extraction and organisation process for key information from all included studies. All analytical and bibliographic records were recorded and organised using Microsoft Excel 2021. For each article, we recorded the author(s), year of publication, country or region, research objectives, methodological approach, policy dimension, and findings. The temporal distribution of the publications, geographic representation, and themes were summarised using descriptive statistics (frequency counts and percentage distributions). Textual clustering: Text-based categorisation was performed through manual textual clustering using an inductive content analysis of titles, abstracts, and author keywords. Studies sharing common themes, ideas, or terms were categorised into initial clusters, which were revisited throughout the process to check for conceptual coherence and relevance to the aims of our scoping study. This hybrid Excel method combines quantitative tallying and qualitative reasoning, thus promoting a clear model of constituent studies and allowing for the replication of research trends, prevailing policy subjects, and geographical orientations in tropical beef system reports. Figure 3 (as a geographic map) demonstrate the thematic clusters and regional trends, where a particular focus is placed on presenting an overview of the methodology applied to the studies analysed.

2.7. Validation of Textual Clustering

Two validation methods were employed to assess the rigor and trustworthiness of this research: intercoder reliability testing following the guidelines of Landis and Koch [86] and expert reviewer validation of the inductive theme generation process using Elo and Kyngas’ [87] systematic content analysis approach. The expert reviewer validation was consistent with the principles of iterative refinement and consultation [88] and the scoping review guidelines [89].

3. Results

Researchers identified 61 peer-reviewed publications that met all the inclusion criteria, as outlined in Table 2, and used these publications to characterise the global scientific literature in terms of production efficiency, sustainable beef production, and beef value chain management. Studies included in the systematic literature review were included. They were published between 2019 and 2025 under diverse socioeconomic and agroecological conditions. The most common regions were South America (including Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia), sub-Saharan Africa (including South Africa, Kenya, and Ethiopia), South Asia, Southeast Asia (including Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India), and Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand).

3.1. Study Design and Thematic Distribution

Of the 61 papers reviewed, approximately 45% used empirical quantitative techniques such as cost–benefit analysis, econometric modelling, and farm surveys, with the remaining 33% using LCA and system dynamics models. Another 22% were reviews or conceptual articles synthesising evidence from multiple disciplines and fields. Using these different methodological lenses, four themes emerged from the literature. Research topics under these categories showed clusters of research into production efficiency and resource use (n = 18), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigation and environmental sustainability (n = 16), policy and market linkages (n = 15), and genetic improvement and technology adoption (n = 12), indicating a shift from production-oriented global beef research agendas to those that inform policies.

3.2. Geographic and Value Chain Focus

Most studies reviewed have taken place in the tropics (largely Latin America and Southeast Asia) and have focused on improving the efficiency of production, integrating silvopastoral systems, and improving the policy framework of tropical beef production systems. The geographic and agroecological focuses of the 61 reviewed studies are summarised in Table 6. Most studies (n = 57) were conducted in the tropical region (mainly Latin America and Southeast Asia), whereas seven studies were selected from subtropical and temperate climates for benchmarking. Studies were classified as ‘Global multi-region (tropical focus)’ based on multicountry research of countries or regions across the world with a tropical beef system focus that aimed to comparatively analyse tropical beef systems by cross-regional analysis or meta-analysis. Most research in this category addresses governance for policy coherence, sustainability frameworks, and global adaptation pathways.
Table 6. Geographical distribution and leading themes of studies on tropical and subtropical beef systems (2019–2025).

3.3. Patterns in Determinants and Outcomes

Across contexts, consistent determinants were observed in what performs well along with what sustains beef systems: (1) technical efficiency, driven by Feed Conversion Efficiency (FCE), stocking rate, and reproductive performance, was the most frequently cited factor influencing profitability; (2) institutional support significantly improved market participation in the study area and access to extension services, credit, and cooperatives influenced technology adoption; (3) policies and market incentives, including export demand, carbon credit methods, and deforestation restrictions, influence production patterns in tropical regions; and (4) sustainability assessments centred on environmental metrics, such as methane intensity with water footprint, are often framed using alternative Global Warming Potential (GWP) metrics, such as GWP100, rather than GWP*. Crop, livestock, and silvopastoral systems typically yield better results in terms of productivity and ecosystem services than monoculture systems. These outcomes suggest potential benefits in terms of the efficiency and sustainability of the proposed method.

3.4. Advances in Analytical Frameworks

Since 2020, an integrated system combining system dynamics, agent-based modelling, life cycle assessment, and economic modelling has been used to analyse the trade-off between production and emissions from a systems-thinking approach to global sustainability assessments. The modelling also includes economic factors. Hybrid indicators have been proposed, such as the “economic GHG intensity” (the USD gross margin per kg of CO2e). These indicators connect economic and environmental measures.

3.5. Identified Gaps and Emerging Research Directions

Despite advances in methodology, the synthesis identified recurring knowledge gaps in the literature regarding the topic. First, Asia and Africa exhibit limited socioeconomic diversity, particularly in regions dominated by smallholder ownership, which may hinder smallholder integration. Second, some evidence suggests that the costs and benefits of disease control and breeding interventions, such as BVDV eradication and genomic selection programs, may be inconsistent. Third, weak linkages between policy simulation models and micro-level behavioural data hinder the testing of strong policy scenarios across different contexts. Finally, market segmentation studies assessing tropical beef branding and willingness to pay have underestimated consumer demand.
Information from the 61 reviewed studies was summarised within the PAGER framework (Pattern, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for Practice, and Research recommendations), following the scoping review protocol of Arksey and O’Malley and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Figure 2). The methodological process from database screening to PAGER synthesis is summarised in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows the regional and thematic distribution of the reviewed studies. Together, these visual tools enhance the transparency and replicability of the review process. They represent an overview of the current state of the art, progress, and research needs for sustainable ruminant production systems in the tropics. Future work should focus on stakeholder-based system dynamics models, life cycle assessments, and econometric modelling to evaluate policy responses across climate and market scenarios. The alignment of the 61 study parts highlighted the existence of multi-objective sustainability frameworks in global beef cattle production systems. Finally, successful frameworks for beef cattle systems must balance productivity, environmental soundness, and socioeconomic resilience.

3.6. Cluster-Based Thematic Patterns

Seven thematic clusters were synthesised from the literature. These clusters reflect the key dimensions of sustainability for systematically interpreting the evolving body of knowledge on tropical beef cattle production systems in Brazil. The clusters also reflect recurrent research emphases that researchers identified across studies: (1) environmental sustainability including water, carbon, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) footprint; (2) pasture, forage, and feed systems; (3) genetics and breeding to increase animals efficiency; (4) professional management of animal health, welfare, and stress; (5) production systems along with integration models; (6) socioeconomic, market, and policy dimensions; and (7) professional assessments of sustainability along with system dynamics development. A cluster-based approach enhances the comprehension of sustainability challenges and innovations in tropical beef systems by addressing the balance among environmental, economic, and institutional factors. This method aggregates essential topics, research contributions, and unresolved queries to provide a framework for guiding future research and policy initiatives.
This text discusses three clusters related to tropical beef production: the first emphasises environmental sustainability through water-use efficiency and GHG emissions mitigation; the second examines diverse forage systems that influence productivity and emissions; and the third focuses on breeding strategies and genetic enhancements for improved animal efficiency and climate adaptability. The critical dimensions of sustainable systems are reflected in the fourth cluster, which focuses on animal health and welfare, although it is under-represented. Cluster 5 examined all services provided by the integrated production systems. Silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral systems were the focus of this study. Socio-economic, market, and regulatory contexts also impact production viability and equity in the sixth cluster. The seventh cluster focuses on evaluation tools and system dynamics to model interconnected sustainability outcomes, emphasising the complexity and potential for implementing sustainable transitions in tropical beef cattle systems.
  • Cluster 1. Environmental sustainability: water, carbon, and GHG footprint
Some studies have addressed the largest points of environmental concern in tropical beef cattle production systems [25,27,30,37,42,43,45,48,56,58,59,61,67,70,71,78,79,90]. Water footprints have been well studied [25,37,70], and genetic and feed improvements can help reduce the overall water footprint of beef production in tropical climate. From a GHG emissions perspective, measures such as legume-based feed rationing [44,46,67,91], silvopastures [30,58,59], and feed additives [71,79] can reduce methane emissions. Systems can be wide-ranging and intensive; extensification tends to increase soil carbon [61], but efficiency increases with intensification, and emissions per unit area may be higher [48]. This synthesis underscores the necessity of a landscape perspective to justify the balance between production and emission.
  • Cluster 2. Pasture, forage, and feed systems
Including trees and shrubs can improve forage quality [29,30,34,38,39,40,44,49,50,67,68,91] and also provide other ecosystem services [30,49,58,59]. Including legumes can reduce the application of nitrogen fertilisers, increase the protein content of the offered forage, and stabilise the production of forage [44,68,91]. Studies on grazing frequency and length [39] suggest that rotational grazing affects grazing behaviour and the longevity of vegetation more than grazing frequency or length. However, little is known about how extreme climate change interacts with the quality of tropical forage.
  • Cluster 3. Genetics, breeding, and animal efficiency
Additionally, other studies [30,36,69,85,92] have identified genetic improvements in system efficiency. Genome-wide association and genomic selection studies [36,69] have revealed biological pathways related to early puberty in Nelore cattle exposed to heat stress. The efficiency of animal production for breeding may also influence this process [92]. Selection for water efficiency and climate adaptation [30,85] is another option, with long-term mitigation expected to be advantageous. However, incorporating genetic findings into land management and nutritional strategies in warm climates is challenging.
  • Cluster 4. Animal health, welfare, and stress management
It is argued that there appears to be a lack of transdisciplinary bridges between health matters and ecological perspectives with regard to the discussed points of heat stress and feeding behaviour on performance [83,85,93], heat countermeasures [93] to improve farm profitability and reduce environmental impact, and feeding and drinking behaviour as indicators of welfare [83] and their implications in terms of carcass quality.
  • Cluster 5. Production systems and integration models
The integration of livestock with oil palm and agroforestry [34,54,60,64,65,66,72,73,75,76,77] has been a popular topic in Latin America and Asia. One reason is that diversified income can be considered an advantage of these systems. They also affect soil quality and degradation. In Indonesia and Malaysia, beef self-sufficiency has high growth potential [54,64,65,75,77]. Barriers include the need for regulatory changes, improved market access, and increased institutional support. The models [60,72] combine flexible economics and managerial complexity.
  • Cluster 6. Socioeconomic, market, and policy dimensions
The literature [26,28,52,55,62,63,65,66,73,74,80,81] emphasises that technical aspects, coupled with social, market, and policy factors, determine the sustainability of tropical beef cattle systems. The commercialising of products is frequently stifled at the smallholder level due to market failures [28,52,73,74]. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent among smallholders in developing countries. Brazil’s public policies have a positive impact on low-carbon agriculture [55]; however, Indonesia has regulatory disharmony as a major barrier [80]. Food safety risks and the exclusion of smallholders owing to stringent standards have also been highlighted in supply chain research [62,81]. This discussion emphasises the need for technical innovators to reform their policy.
  • Cluster 7. Sustainability assessment and system dynamics
Systems dynamics models and sustainability assessments [27,72,75,84] are currently employed to understand the complex relationships involved in the biophysical, economic, and social processes of agroecosystems. These models have been used to identify leverage points in production systems. For example, a study from Paraguay [84] demonstrated some meaningful environmental impacts of semi-intensive systems despite their more efficient production. The integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches improves the policy analysis. However, real-time monitoring is required to strengthen the integration.

3.7. Validation of Thematic Clustering

Using intercoder reliability tests of Cohen’s kappa (a statistic for nominal scale level of agreement between two raters), the inter-rater reliability across all seven clusters was found to have very substantial to almost perfect agreement [94], with a maximum of 0.837 for Cluster 6 and 0.824 for Cluster 1; only Cluster 4 was below this level at 0.690. These results demonstrated consistent coder interpretations and stable thematic boundaries. A panel of experts confirmed the congruence of the clusters; they agreed that the clustering was conceptually correct and that the clusters were not overlapping. The conceptual models for each cluster, that is, environmental sustainability (Cluster 1), feed systems (Cluster 2), genetics and efficiency (Cluster 3), animal welfare and stress (Cluster 4), integrated production systems (Cluster 5), socioeconomic and policy aspects (Cluster 6), and system dynamics (Cluster 7), were found to be theoretically and internally consistent. The triangulation of the reliability rating, expert validation, and boundary exercise collectively support the seven-cluster solution as a valid and useful tool to represent the dimensions of sustainability within the feedlot industry. For reproducibility and transparency purposes, we provide triangulation tables and a summary of the independent expert review in Supplementary Materials S5 and S6.
The interconnections within the sustainable transformation of the tropical beef system are depicted in the network map in Figure 5. As synthesised in Table 7, the sustainability patterns (P) synthesise how the technological and institutional patterns of change (A) are driven at the calculated level. This results in evidence-based interventions (E) along the value chain, such as integrated silvopasture, mainstreaming the use of legumes, and targeted innovation in animal feed with identified systemic bottlenecks (G) at the intervention level, methodological, governance, and integration bottlenecks. Conversely, the recommendations for research (R) consider how the identification of such barriers could be countered, including by developing harmonised MRV protocols, multisite trials, and equity-sensitive policy paradigms. This may guide tropical beef production towards sustainable low-carbon, equitable, and resilient transformation pathways.
Figure 5. Tropical beef system transformation.
Table 7. Strategic synthesis of key findings using the PAGER framework.

4. Discussion

The thematic evolution of tropical beef research reflects a paradigmatic shift from efficiency-driven to sustainability-oriented inquiry. These shifts align with global concerns regarding food security, climate change, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. Prior to 2015, research on supply chains focused primarily on efficiency. Prominence of governance and welfare issues. Based on our comparison, governance and welfare have been stressed more in recent years (post-2019), perhaps because of global policy frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. Longitudinal and bibliometric studies are needed to statistically assess this phenomenon.
The mix of pasture and fodder systems, environmental footprints, genetic advancements, and policy alignment suggests an increasing understanding and acceptance of the productivity/welfare/environmental ‘nexus’ that intersects how applied innovation technical shifts create bigger farm impacts via institutional/policy systems. For instance, genetic or feed efficiencies will only become durable if the governance of the national and regional levels can enact incentive-compatible policies. These links also indicate a transition in research focus from technical studies in isolation to adaptive governance thinking, although the clusters are still unequally connected. Integrated crop-livestock forestry system studies have stressed ecological co-benefits while neglecting regulatory feasibility and market incentives. Likewise, studies on welfare and emissions often ignore the socio-economic trade-offs at the producer level. Such fragmentation suggests the need for a coherently articulated policy at all levels, particularly in emerging economies such as Indonesia, where central self-sufficiency targets often diverge from local market realities.
The current review has several methodological limitations. Manual charting and qualitative synthesis are transparent but weak in terms of statistical depth and reproducibility. The omission of English and grey literature may have suppressed important regional differences. Therefore, while the current analysis provides an organised map of the trajectories of the themes, its findings should be considered in broadly directional terms. Prospective research should combine bibliometric network analyses, participatory modelling, and comparative policy evaluation to capture the dynamic interrelationships between technology, ecology, and governance. Collectively, the synthesis highlights that sustainable change in tropical beef systems requires new technological solutions to arrive at multi-level governance values and policies that enable such innovations. The conversation progresses beyond descriptive insight in the context of one conceptual bridge that sustainability transitions will only be achieved when productivity, equity, and environmental integrity are understood as mutually reinforcing, rather than competing policy goals.
The Indonesian government is currently developing a feedlot industry. Infrastructure support complements a consistent set of policies, simplification of regulations, and incentive systems. These needs reduce feed costs, enhance market access, and mitigate regulatory issues. To achieve this goal, stakeholders must collaborate, coordinate, and invest in research and education. Innovation increases productivity, competitiveness, and progress toward beef self-sufficiency in the beef industry. Despite the importance of the policy interventions outlined above, this review highlights two critical research gaps that hamper the development of more effective and sustainable strategies. First, limited information exists on the interaction between feed management strategies, genetic performance, and climate stressors, which hinders the development of resilient and locally informed adaptive options for livestock production. Second, previous studies have not extensively investigated all supply chain governance mechanisms. Smallholder growers remain cut off for now, although stakeholders must also engage with them, and the benefits should accrue to them. Market reinforcement constitutes a type of technology adoption innovation that is believed to have shifted the beef cattle value chain from a supply push to a demand-pull approach [95]. This highlights the need for governance to develop a ‘tailored’ governance framework constructed for the specific business model, particularly in relation to livestock-crop integration and policies. Finally, this study highlights the importance of strengthening production systems. Additionally, balance should be considered when providing ecosystem support. This exploration is required to develop sustainable livestock-rearing strategies.
In this scoping review, evidence from tropical and subtropical settings was collated on the topic, and the low comparability of studies between countries was due to different methods, country-level data quality, and context-specific factors. The evidence from the review is primarily based on predictive modelling methods, which vary in quality and suggest trends rather than definitive conclusions. This highlights the importance of technical and institutional mechanisms in sustainable beef systems, emphasising the need for consistent policies, market drivers, and technologies, such as genomic selection and feed optimisation.

4.1. Cross-Cutting Insights and Remaining Gaps

This scoping review confirms that the sustainable transformation of tropical beef systems occurs when market institutions, land stewardship, and innovation synergise. Innovative governance tailored to the realities of smallholders, coupled with technological advancement, is essential. Advancements in genetics and feed management are crucial for bridging the current supply–demand gap in the beef cattle industry. However, there are two important research deficiencies in this direction.
  • Connected analyses on breeding strategies, genetic performance and climate stressors are crucial for any resilient adaptive strategy development;
  • Governance mechanisms in supply chains, particularly regarding the exclusion of smallholders from high-value markets, remain poorly understood.
Aligning research, policy collaboration, and investment in education, information systems, and farmer capacity should be part of these solutions.

4.2. Implications for Indonesia and the Tropics

There is an urgent need for the appropriate scientific progress and institutions to develop the tropical beef industry in Indonesia. Private sector investment is attracted, market chain efficiency is improved, and the cost of beef cattle feed is reduced as stable and consistent policy environments are established. Active collaboration across stakeholder groups is required to enable smallholders, cooperatives, and commercial players to take advantage of the available opportunities and transform the beef value chain into a pull instead of a push system. Indonesia ought to have a frontier system function by creating new adaptive pathways for higher production efficiency, lower environmental impact, and enhanced social equity. Indonesia is a model for tropical beef supply chains; hence, there are opportunities to develop sustainable supply chains.

5. Conclusions

Silvopastures and integrated crop-livestock systems were the primary drivers of sustainability, while nutrient management, including legumes, adaptive feeding, and encouragement were also identified as drivers of sustainable systems. Systemic constraints, such as non-matching genotypes and the environment, also exclude many supply chains and limit their monitoring ability. Ethics, long-term validation, governance of justice, and evaluation of health effects are also important but are inconsistently reported in the literature. This cross-cluster synthesis demonstrates how context-specific interventions aimed at enhancing environmental resilience, inclusiveness, and productivity can inform national investment and policymaking. These efforts can improve climate resilience, inclusiveness, and competitiveness across sectors, ultimately guiding the industry toward sustainable development goals. This aligns with SDGs 2, 12, and 13 through the advancement of fairness and equity.
This scoping review focused on Indonesia and other tropical nations. We created a collection of sixty-one publications that provide context to the transforming tropical beef cattle production systems and link the various biophysical, institutional, and economic aspects of the tropical beef value chain. Linkage, rather than technical inputs, creates stability in these systems. This suggests that changes in the near-to-medium-term tropical beef production opportunities will come from the three areas of technological change: genetic improvements, feed efficiency, and pasture intensification. These pathways will require the co-implementation of technologies and practices that reduce emissions and/or increase productivity as production on tropical beef farms expands (or continues to expand) alongside cooperation across sectors (i.e., cross-sectoral cooperation). Institutional arrangements should include farmer cooperatives, transparent value chains, and policy instruments with associated incentives. These agreements can foster innovation and link it to the region’s overall economic expansion. Economic modelling and life cycle analysis are two examples of systematic assessment frameworks that work well for evaluating trade-offs for sustainable futures. This is best illustrated by Indonesia’s cattle business, which shows how tropical agricultural economies can strike a balance between environmental, rural, and global sustainability goals.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su172411252/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.C. and Z.A.; methodology, W.C.; software, W.C.; validation, W.C., N.N. and Y.A.; formal analysis, W.C.; investigation, W.C.; data curation, W.C.; writing—original draft preparation, W.C.; writing—review and editing, W.C., N.N., Y.A. and Z.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available upon request to the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Nunung Nuryartono, Yandra Arkeman, and Zenal Asikin for their valuable support and contributions in assisting the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript.
ARDLAutoregressive Distributed Lag
BVDVBovine Viral Diarrhoea Virus
CASPCritical Appraisal Skills Programme
ESGEnvironmental, Social, and Governance
FCEFeed Conversion Efficiency
GHGGreenhouse Gas
GWPGlobal Warming Potential
ICLFIntegrated Crop-Livestock-Forestry
JBIJoanna Briggs Institute
LCALife Cycle Assessment
LiGAPSLivestock simulator for Generic analysis of Animal Production Systems
MRVMeasurement, Reporting, and Verification
SISustainability Intensification

References

  1. Nasrullah; Makmun; Ramadhany, A.; Ermansyah, L.; Wirawan, M.; Munawar, J.A.; Nurzamin, A.; Nurrohmah, R.A.; Zaironi, A.; Kurniawan, V.A. Statistik Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan 2024; Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan, Kementerian Pertanian RI: DKI Jakarta, Indonesia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hadi, S.N.; Chung, R.H. Estimation of demand for beef imports in Indonesia: An Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. OECD. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022–2031; OECD: Paris, France, 2022; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2022-2031_f1b0b29c-en.html (accessed on 5 October 2025).
  5. BPK RI. Peraturan Menteri Pertanian Republik Indonesia Nomor 17 Tahun 2020 Tentang Peningkatan Produksi Sapi dan Kerbau Komoditas Andalan Negeri; BPK RI: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Darmawan, H.; Chang, H.L.; Wu, H.H. A community-based breeding program as a genetic resource management strategy of Indonesian ongole cattle. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Widyas, N.; Widi, T.S.M.; Prastowo, S.; Sumantri, I.; Hayes, B.J.; Burrow, H.M. Promoting sustainable utilization and genetic improvement of Indonesian local beef cattle breeds: A review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO. Food-and-Mouth Disease, April–June 2021, Quarterly Report; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules (accessed on 1 October 2025).
  9. Nugroho, W.; Silitonga, R.J.P.; Reichel, M.P.; Irianingsih, S.H.; Wicaksono, M.S. The epidemiology and control of Bovine Viral Diarrhoea virus in tropical Indonesian cattle. Pathogens 2022, 11, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Rubio Lozano, M.S.; Ngapo, T.M.; Huerta-Leidenz, N. Tropical beef: Is there an axiomatic basis to define the concept? Foods 2021, 10, 1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dahlanuddin; Henderson, B.; Dizyee, K.; Hermansyah Ash, A. Assessing the sustainable development and intensification potential of beef cattle production in Sumbawa, Indonesia, using a system dynamics approach. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Weltin, M.; Hüttel, S. Sustainable intensification farming as an enabler for farm eco-efficiency? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2023, 84, 315–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Touch, V.; Tan, D.K.Y.; Cook, B.R.; Liu, D.L.; Cross, R.; Tran, T.A.; Utomo, A.; Yous, S.; Grunbuhel, C.; Cowie, A. Smallholder farmers’ challenges and opportunities: Implications for agricultural production, environment and food security. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Denning, G. Sustainable intensification of agriculture: The foundation for universal food security. NPJ Sustain. Agric. 2025, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z.P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 2014, 114, 1571–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rockström, J.; Williams, J.; Daily, G.; Noble, A.; Matthews, N.; Gordon, L.; Wetterstrand, H.; DeClerck, F.; Shah, M.; Steduto, P.; et al. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 2017, 46, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jain, M.; Barrett, C.B.; Solomon, D.; Ghezzi-Kopel, K. Surveying the evidence on sustainable intensification strategies for smallholder agricultural systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2023, 48, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tedeschi, L.O.; Johnson, D.C.; Atzori, A.S.; Kaniyamattam, K.; Menendez, H.M. Applying systems thinking to sustainable beef production management: Modeling-based evidence for enhancing ecosystem services. Systems 2024, 12, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sudomo, A.; Leksono, B.; Tata, H.L.; Rahayu, A.A.D.; Umroni, A.; Rianawati, H.; Asmaliyah; Krisnawati; Setyayudi, A.; Utomo, M.M.B.; et al. Can agroforestry contribute to food and livelihood security for Indonesia’s smallholders in the climate change era? Agriculture 2023, 13, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Galyean, M.L.; Hales, K.E. Feeding management strategies to mitigate methane and improve production efficiency in feedlot cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bradbury-Jones, C.; Aveyard, H.; Herber, O.R.; Isham, L.; Taylor, J.; O’Malley, L. Scoping reviews: The PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2022, 25, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barsotti, M.P.; de Almeida, R.G.; Macedo, M.C.M.; da Costa Gomes, R.; Palhares, J.C.P.; Mazzetto, A.; Dickhoefer, U. A pathway for decreasing the water footprint from grazing-based beef production systems in the Tropics. Agric. Syst. 2025, 222, 104192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Donoso, V.G.; Hirye, M.C.M.; Gerwenat, C.; Reicher, C. Amazon deforestation and global meat consumption trends: An assessment of land use change and market data from Rondônia that shows why we should consider changing our diets. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Blignaut, J.; Meissner, H.; Smith, H.; du Toit, L. An integrative bio-physical approach to determine the greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sinks of a cow and her offspring in a beef cattle operation: A system dynamics approach. Agric. Syst. 2022, 195, 103286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eyasmin, F.; Ghosh, B.C. Analyzing the determinants of beef cattle commercialization and its market inefficiency: A case study of Pabna district, Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0300034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dill, M.D.; Pereira, P.R.R.X.; Machado, J.A.D.; Pereira, G.R.; Corte, V.F.D.; Teixeira, O.d.S.; Barcellos, J.O.J. Association of the forage management practices, weaning rate, and factors that influence technological adoption in beef cattle production. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2020, 49, e20190145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pereira, M.; Morais, M.D.G.; Fernandes, P.B.; Dos Santos, V.A.C.; Glatzle, S.; De Almeida, R.G. Beef cattle production on Piatã grass pastures in silvopastoral systems: Producción de ganado de carne en pasturas de Urochloa brizantha cv. BRS Piatã en sistemas silvopastoriles. Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop. 2021, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vasconcelos, G.F.; Almeida, V. Carbon Credit and Macaúba Palm Tree: Advancing ESG in Green Cattle Production. Rev. Adm. Contemp. 2024, 28, e240116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mejia Turcios, S.E.; Rotz, C.A.; McGlone, J.; Rivera, C.R.; Mitloehner, F.M. Effects of heat stress mitigation strategies on feedlot cattle performance, environmental, and economic outcomes in a hot climate. Animal 2024, 18, 101257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Magona, C.; Hassen, A.; Tesfamariam, E.; Visser, C.; Oosting, S.; van der Linden, A. Evaluation of LiGAPS-Beef to assess extensive pasture-based beef production in three agro-ecological regions in South Africa. Livest. Sci. 2023, 271, 105231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gobilik, J.; Baco, H.; Kabul, M.A.; Dollah, S.; Morris, S.T.; Matthew, C. Feed profile analysis of oil palm-integrated beef cattle farming systems by metabolic energy budgeting and implications for beef production and pastoral system design. Grassl. Res. 2023, 2, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oliveira, P.P.A.; Berndt, A.; Pedroso, A.F.; Alves, T.C.; Pezzopane, J.R.M.; Sakamoto, L.S.; Henrique, F.L.; Rodrigues, P.H.M. Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint of pasture-based beef cattle production systems in the tropical region (Atlantic Forest biome). Animal 2020, 14, s427–s437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mota, L.F.M.; Carvajal, A.B.; Bernardes, P.A.; Buzanskas, M.E.; Baldi, F.; Lôbo, R.B.; Munari, D.P. Integrating genome-wide association study and pathway analysis reveals physiological aspects affecting heifer early calving defined at different ages in Nelore cattle. Genomics 2022, 114, 110395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tinny, M.N.; Judas, M.T.; Agree, N.K.; Baldwin, B.C.; Mavis, N.A.; Moses, R.M.; Karen, M.; Bohani, M. Relationship between volumetric water footprint with carcass and meat quality characteristics under intensive beef cattle production in South Africa. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2024, 19, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Carvalho, P.; Domiciano, L.F.; Mombach, M.A.; do Nascimento, H.L.B.; Cabral, L.d.S.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Pereira, D.H.; Pedreira, B.C. Forage and animal production on palisadegrass pastures growing in monoculture or as a component of integrated crop–livestock–forestry systems. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 650–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, Y.; Yu, R.; Li, X.; Chen, R.; Liu, J. Grazing regime rather than grazing intensity affect the foraging behavior of cattle. Ecol. Inform. 2025, 85, 102996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. da Silva, F.S.; Domiciano, L.F.; Gomes, F.J.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Pedreira, C.G.S.; Pereira, D.H.; Pedreira, B.C. Herbage accumulation, nutritive value and beef cattle production on marandu palisadegrass pastures in integrated systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 1891–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fernandes, M.H.M.R.; Cardoso, A.S.; Lima, L.O.; Berça, A.S.; Reis, R.A. Human-edible protein contribution of tropical beef cattle production systems at different levels of intensification. Animal 2022, 16, 100538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Åby, B.A.; Randby, Å.T.; Bonesmo, H.; Aass, L. Impact of grass silage quality on greenhouse gas emissions from dairy and beef production. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. An-Vo, D.A.; Cobon, D.; Owens, J.; Liedloff, A.; Cowan, T.; Power, S. Impacts of environmental feedbacks on the production of a Central Queensland beef enterprise in a future climate. Agric. Syst. 2024, 214, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Trumpp, K.R.; Dubeux, J.C.B., Jr.; Garcia, L.; Jaramillo, D.M.; Neto, J.P.; Santos, E.R.S.; Queiroz, L.M.D.; Bretas, I.L.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.; de Souza, C.H.L.; et al. Integrating forage legumes reduces dependence on N fertilizer and increases the stability of grazing systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2025, 170, 127708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cole, J.B.; Baes, C.F.; Eaglen, S.A.E.; Lawlor, T.J.; Maltecca, C.; Ortega, M.S.; VanRaden, P.M. Invited review: Management of genetic defects in dairy cattle populations. J. Dairy Sci. 2025, 108, 3045–3067. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030225001092 (accessed on 12 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  46. Suybeng, B.; Charmley, E.; Gardiner, C.P.; Malau-Aduli, B.S.; Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. Methane emissions and the use of desmanthus in beef cattle production in Northern Australia. Animals 2019, 9, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. D’aurea, A.P.; da Silva Cardoso, A.; Guimarães, Y.S.R.; Fernandes, L.B.; Ferreira, L.E.; Reis, R.A. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production in brazil through animal management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sakamoto, L.S.; Berndt, A.; Pedroso, A.d.F.; Lemes, A.P.; Azenha, M.V.; Alves, T.C.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Corte, R.R.; Leme, P.R.; Oliveira, P.P.A. Pasture intensification in beef cattle production can affect Methane emission intensity. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa309. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/jas/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jas/skaa309/5905786 (accessed on 17 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  49. Pontes, L.d.S.; Stafin, G.; Moletta, J.L.; Porfírio-da-Silva, V. Performance of Purunã beef heifers and pasture productivity in a long-term integrated crop-livestock system: The effect of trees and nitrogen fertilization. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 1713–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pezzopane, J.R.M.; De Campos Bernardi, A.C.; Azenha, M.V.; Oliveira, P.P.A.; Bosi, C.; De Faria Pedroso, A.; Esteves, S.N. Production and nutritive value of pastures in integrated livestock production systems: Shading and management effects. Sci. Agric. 2020, 77, e20180150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pereira, J.M.; Rezende, C.d.P.; Borges, A.M.F.; Homem, B.G.C.; Casagrande, D.R.; Macedo, T.M.; Alves, B.J.R.; de Sant’Anna, S.A.C.; Urquiaga, S.; Boddey, R.M. Production of beef cattle grazing on Brachiaria brizantha (Marandu grass)—Arachis pintoi (forage peanut cv. Belomonte) mixtures exceeded that on grass monocultures fertilized with 120 kg N/ha. Grass Forage Sci. 2020, 75, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bahta, S.; Temoso, O.; Ng’ombe, J.N.; Rich, K.M.; Baker, D.; Kaitibie, S.; Malope, P. Productive efficiency of beef cattle production in Botswana: A latent class stochastic meta-frontier analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1098642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. dos Santos, C.A.; Monteiro, R.C.; Homem, B.G.C.; Salgado, L.S.; Casagrande, D.R.; Pereira, J.M.; Rezende, C.d.P.; Alves, B.J.R.; Boddey, R.M. Productivity of beef cattle grazing Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu with and without nitrogen fertilizer application or mixed pastures with the legume Desmodium ovalifolium. Grass Forage Sci. 2023, 78, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bremer, J.A.; Lobry de Bruyn, L.A.; Smith, R.G.B.; Darsono, W.; Soedjana, T.D.; Cowley, F.C. Prospects and problems: Considerations for smallholder cattle grazing in oil palm plantations in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2022, 96, 1023–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. da Costa, N.B., Jr.; Baldissera, T.C.; Pinto, C.E.; Garagorry, F.C.; de Moraes, A.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C. Public policies for low carbon emission agriculture foster beef cattle production in southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2019, 80, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lima, L.; Ongaratto, F.; Fernandes, M.; Cardoso, A.; Lage, J.; Silva, L.; Reis, R.; Malheiros, E. Response of pasture Nitrogen fertilization on greenhouse gas emission and net protein contribution of Nellore young bulls. Animals 2022, 12, 3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ku-Vera, J.C.; Castelán-Ortega, O.A.; Galindo-Maldonado, F.A.; Arango, J.; Chirinda, N.; Jiménez-Ocampo, R.; Valencia-Salazar, S.; Flores-Santiago, E.; Flores, M.; Molina-Botero, I.; et al. Review: Strategies for enteric methane mitigation in cattle fed tropical forages. Animal 2020, 14, s453–s463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Resende, L.d.O.; Müller, M.D.; Kohmann, M.M.; Pinto, L.F.G.; Cullen Junior, L.; de Zen, S.; Rego, L.F.G. Silvopastoral management of beef cattle production for neutralizing the environmental impact of enteric methane emission. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parra, A.S.; Ramirez, D.Y.G.; Martínez, E.A. Silvopastoral systems ecological strategy for decreases c footprint in livestock systems of piedmont (Meta), Colombia. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2023, 66, e23220340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Albarrán-Portillo, B.; García-Martínez, A.; Ortiz-Rodea, A.; Rojo-Rubio, R.; Vázquez-Armijo, J.F.; Arriaga-Jordán, C.M. Socioeconomic and productive characteristics of dual purpose farms based on agrosilvopastoral systems in subtropical highlands of central Mexico. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 1939–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Segnini, A.; Xavier, A.A.P.; Otaviani-Junior, P.L.; Oliveira, P.P.A.; Pedroso, A.D.F.; Praes, M.F.F.M.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Milori, D.M.B.P. Soil carbon stock and humification in pastures under different levels of intensification in Brazil. Sci. Agric. 2019, 76, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zadoks, R.N.; Barker, G.C.; Benschop, J.; Allan, K.J.; Chaters, G.; Cleaveland, S.; Crump, J.A.; Davis, M.A.; Mmbaga, B.T.; Prinsen, G.; et al. Spread of nontyphoidal salmonella in the beef supply chain in Northern Tanzania: Sensitivity in a probabilistic model integrating microbiological data and data from stakeholder interviews. Risk Anal. 2022, 42, 989–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Valerio, E.; Hilmiati, N.; Prior, J.; Panjaitan, T. Steering the herd or missing the mark? Navigating the role of research for development projects as innovation intermediaries in the Indonesian cattle sector. Agric. Syst. 2024, 214, 103843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Andesitian, G.; Baliarti, E.; Ngadiyono, N.; Suwignyo, B.; Satya, T.; Widi, M. Sustainability indicators for cattle production system in Kitadin Embalut Post Mining Land, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 9th International Seminar on Tropical Animal Production (ISTAP 2021), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 21–22 September 2021; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  65. Sulfiar, A.E.T.; Guntoro, B.; Atmoko, B.A.; Budisatria, I.G.S. Sustainability of beef cattle farming production system in South Konawe Regency, Southeast Sulawesi. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric. 2022, 47, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rohani, S.T.; Siregar, A.R.; Rasyid, T.; Hatta, M. Sustainable corporate models for beef cattle to support the acceleration of national beef self-sufficiency. J. Glob. Innov. Agric. Sci. 2025, 1165–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Notenbaert, A.M.O.; Douxchamps, S.; Villegas, D.M.; Arango, J.; Paul, B.K.; Burkart, S.; Rao, I.; Kettle, C.J.; Rudel, T.; Vázquez, E.; et al. Tapping into the environmental co-benefits of improved tropical forages for an agroecological transformation of livestock production systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 742842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Enciso, K.; Sotelo, M.; Peters, M.; Burkart, S. The inclusion of Leucaena diversifolia in a Colombian beef cattle production system: An economic perspective. Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop. 2019, 7, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Carvalheiro, R.; Costilla, R.; Neves, H.H.R.; Albuquerque, L.G.; Moore, S.; Hayes, B.J. Unraveling genetic sensitivity of beef cattle to environmental variation under tropical conditions. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2019, 51, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Pereira, G.M.; Egito, A.A.; Gomes, R.C.; Ribas, M.N.; Torres Junior, R.A.A.; Fernandes Junior, J.A.; Menezes, G. Water requirements of beef production can be reduced by genetic selection. Animal 2021, 15, 100142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Hernández, O.; López, A.; Ceron-Cucchi, M.E.; Alabi, C.D.A.; Loza, C.; Sequeira, A.V.J.; Fissolo, H.M.; García, E.M.; Gere, J.I. Whole cottonseed as an effective strategy to mitigate enteric nethane Emissions in cattle fed low-quality forages. Animals 2025, 15, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Cruz, F.; Pardo, D.; Horcada, A.; Mena, Y. An assessment of sustainability of dual-purpose, dairy and beef cattle production systems in the Cundinamarca Department (Colombia) using the MESMIS framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fitrini; Masyhuri; Darwanto, D.H.; Kusumastuti, T.A. Analysis of beef cattle’s potential as a leading commodity in the agropolitan areas in Padang Pariaman Regency. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2024, 12, 2118–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Susanti, A.E.; Priyanto, R.; Muladno; Astuti, D.A.; Nugrohowati, L.C.E. Analysis of strategy for developing beef cattle production on a smallholder farming basis in Musi Banyuasin Regency South Sumatra. Bul. Peternak. 2022, 46, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Susanti, A.E.; Priyanto, R.; Muladno; Astuti, D.A.; Cyrilla, L. Application of system dynamics modelling in evaluating sustainability of beef cattle production and business system in smallholder farmers in South Sumatera, Indonesia. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2023, 11, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Astiti, N.M.A.G.R.; Magfiroh, D.; Balia, R.L. Bali cattle farming business during COVID-19 and post COVID-19. J. Surv. Fish. Sci. 2022, 10, 1445–1455. [Google Scholar]
  77. Grinnell, N.A.; van der Linden, A.; Azhar, B.; Nobilly, F.; Slingerland, M. Cattle-oil palm integration—A viable strategy to increase Malaysian beef self-sufficiency and palm oil sustainability. Livest. Sci. 2022, 259, 104902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rivera, J.E.; Chará, J.; Barahona, R. CH4, CO2 and N2O emissions from grasslands and bovine excreta in two intensive tropical dairy production systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 915–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Angthong, W.; Mori, A.; Kitwetcharoen, H.; Kaeokliang, O.; Kamphayae, S.; Suzuki, T.; Cai, Y.; Maeda, K. Comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from Thai beef cattle production and the effect of rice straw amendment on the manure microbiome. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 872911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kalalo, J.J.J.; Betaubun, R.M.N.; Marpaung, D.N.; Badilla, N.W.Y. Disharmony of policy laws and regulations in the effort to develop beef cattle production in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 17–19 October 2024; Institute of Physics: Bristol, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  81. Cammelli, F.; Levy, S.A.; Grabs, J.; Valentim, J.F.; Garrett, R.D. Effectiveness-equity tradeoffs in enforcing exclusionary supply chain policies: Lessons from the Amazonian cattle sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 130031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cole, N.A.; Meyer, B.E.; Parker, D.B.; Neel, J.; Turner, K.E.; Northup, B.K.; Jennings, T.; Jennings, J.S. Effects of diet quality on energy metabolism and methane production by beef steers fed a warm-season grass-based hay diet. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 36, 652–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pires, B.V.; Reolon, H.G.; Abduch, N.G.; Souza, L.L.; Sakamoto, L.S.; Mercadante, M.E.Z.; Silva, R.M.O.; Fragomeni, B.O.; Baldi, F.; Paz, C.C.P.; et al. Effects of feeding and drinking behavior on performance and carcass traits in beef cattle. Animals 2022, 12, 3196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Costantini, M.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Manzardo, A.; Bacenetti, J. Environmental impact assessment of beef cattle production in semi-intensive systems in Paraguay. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Silva Neto, J.B.; Brito, L.F.; Mota, L.F.M.; Silva, M.R.G.; Rodrigues, G.R.D.; Baldi, F. Exploring the impact of heat stress on feed efficiency in tropical beef cattle using genomic reaction norm models. Animal 2025, 19, 101612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Levac, D.; Colquhoun, H.; O’brien, K.K. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010, 5, 69. Available online: http://www.cihr-irsc.ca (accessed on 17 November 2025). [CrossRef]
  89. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Nindhia, T.G.T.; McDonald, M.; Styles, D. Greenhouse gas mitigation and rural electricity generation by a novel two-stroke biogas engine. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124473. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620345170 (accessed on 12 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  91. Dos Santos, M.P.; Morais, T.G.; Domingos, T.; Teixeira, R.F.M. Measuring and scoring socioeconomic and environmental performance of Mediterranean pasture-based beef farms. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 440, 140850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rowan, N.J.; Murray, N.; Qiao, Y.; O’Neill, E.; Clifford, E.; Barceló, D.; Power, D.M. Digital transformation of peatland eco-innovations (‘Paludiculture’): Enabling a paradigm shift towards the real-time sustainable production of ‘green-friendly’ products and services. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156328. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722034258 (accessed on 17 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  93. Mejia Duque Torres, C.; Ciacci, L.; Passarini, F. Phosphorous flow analysis and resource circularity at the province level in north Italy. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 33, 101133. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554123001675 (accessed on 12 August 2025). [CrossRef]
  94. Rowan, T.N. Invited Review: Genetic decision tools for increasing cow efficiency and sustainability in forage-based beef systems. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2022, 38, 660–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Asikin, Z.; Baker, D.; Villano, R.; Daryanto, A. The use of innovation uptake in identification of business models in the Indonesian smallholder cattle value chain. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2024, 14, 845–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Environmental Responsibility Under Stress and War: The Commitment of Environmentally Engaged Individuals to Environmental Protection Decreases During Periods of Stress and War
Previous
Balancing Cultural Values and Energy Transition: A Multi-Criteria Approach Inspired by the New European Bauhaus
Next