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

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. Database, search string, and applied filters for the entries included in the literature search.

Database	Search String	Filter Applied/Purpose	Rationale for Inclusion
Scopus	“beef cattle production” OR “feedlot competitiveness” AND PUBYEAR > 2018 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English” )) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA, “all”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Animals”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Livestock Science”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Animal”))	Published between 2019–2025; journal article; English; all open access.	Scopus was selected to provide thorough coverage of peer-reviewed literature on agricultural economics, animal science and sustainability policy.
Semantic Scholar	“beef cattle production” OR “feedlot competitiveness” AND “policy”	Published between 2019 and 2025; all fields of study.	The Semantic Scholar database helped capture policy-related grey and interdisciplinary literature that was not indexed in Scopus and PubMed.
EBSCOhost	TX (“beef cattle production” OR “feedlot competitiveness”)	Published in the last five years in peer-reviewed scientific journals.	CAB Abstracts offers papers on agricultural policy, management, and economic sustainability to identify multidisciplinary database.
ScienceDirect (Elsevier)	(“beef cattle production” OR “feedlot competitiveness”)	Published between 2019–2025; article type: review articles and research articles; open access and open archive.	Excellent reviews and empirical studies on animal agriculture and sustainability transitions have been conducted.
PubMed	(“beef cattle production”[All Fields] OR ((“feedlot”[All Fields] OR “feedlots”[All Fields]) AND (“competition”[All Fields] OR “competitions”[All Fields] OR “competitive”[All Fields] OR “competitively”[All Fields] OR “competitiveness”[All Fields]))) AND ((y_5[Filter]) AND (ffrft[Filter]) AND (fha[Filter]) AND (fft[Filter]))	Published in the last five years; text availability: abstract, free full text, and full text.	Research on cattle systems considers viewpoints from biomedicine, veterinary medicine, and animal welfare.
Google Scholar	“beef cattle production” OR “feedlot competitiveness” AND “post-COVID”	Published between 2020 and 2025; review articles.	Google Scholar was used to identify other open-access or emerging post-COVID-19 policy reports that were not captured in the indexed databases.

. 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.

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.

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 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.

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. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Peer-reviewed articles, policy reports, or working papers	Non-livestock/agri-food studies
Empirical or conceptual studies focusing on (a) beef cattle production, (b) trade, post-COVID impacts, resilience, or sustainability, and (c) Indonesia or similar agroecological/tropical economies.	Commentary without data or frameworks
Published in English	High-income countries (unless related to Indonesia’s trade)
Published in 2019–2025	Articles published before 2019
	Duplicates or re-publications
	Studies without relevance to climate, trade, or sustainability

, 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.

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. Data extraction.

Section and Topic	Description
Title	Identify the report as a systematic review.
Abstract	A structured summary was provided that included the background, objectives, methods, results or findings, and conclusions.
Rationale	Describe the rationale for the review in the context of the existing knowledge.
Objectives	Provide an explicit statement of the objective (s) or question (s) the review addresses.
Eligibility criteria	Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.
Information sources	Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.
Search strategy	Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.
Selection process	Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Data collection process	Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Data items	List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses) and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.
Study risk of bias assessment	Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Effect measures	Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.
Synthesis methods	Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis; any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses, and methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used, methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results, and sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.
Reporting bias assessment	Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
Certain assessment	Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.
Study selection	Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.
Study characteristics	Cite each included study and present its characteristics.
Risk of bias in studies	Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
Results of individual studies	For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
Results of syntheses	For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.
Reporting biases	Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
Certainty of evidence	Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.
Discussion	Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.
Registration and protocol	Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.
Support	Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.
Competing interests	Declare any competing interests of review authors.
Availability of data, code, and other materials	Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.

) 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.

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. Critical appraisal criteria for included studies.

Code	Assessment Criteria	Short Description
Q1	Clear Aim/Objectives	Was the research objective or question clearly explained?
Q2	Appropriate Design	Was the research design appropriate for answering the research question?
Q3	Rigourous Methods	Were the methods valid and replicable?
Q4	Valid/Trustworthy Results	Were the results reliable (e.g., significant, consistent or credible)?
Q5	Relevant Context	Was the geographic, social, or ecological context relevant and explained?
Q6	Adequate Data Reporting	Were the data or results adequately reported?
Q7	Ethical Considerations	Were ethical considerations explained or indicated (e.g., consent and animal welfare)?
Q8	Policy/Practice Relevance	Does the study have relevance to policy or field practice?
Q9	Transparent Limitations	Did the study acknowledge and explain its limitations?
Q10	Contribution to Evidence	Did the study make a new contribution or strengthen the existing evidence?

) and results (

Table 5. Critical appraisal representative studies (Q1–Q10 criteria).

	Short Title	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Notes
1	A pathway for decreasing… [25]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
2	Amazon deforestation and global meat consumption trends… [26]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
3	An integrative bio-physical approach… [27]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	System dynamics; sensitivity explored
4	Analyzing the determinants of beef cattle commercialization and Its market inefficiency… [28]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
5	Association of the forage management practices… [29]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
6	Beef cattle production on Piatã grass pastures in silvopastoral systems [30]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
7	Carbon credit and Macaúba palm tree: advancing ESG in green cattle production [31]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
8	Effects of heat stress mitigation strategies… [32]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
9	Evaluation of LiGAPS-Beef to assess extensive pasture-based beef production… [33]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	System dynamics; sensitivity explored
10	Feed profile analysis of oil palm-integrated beef cattle farming systems… [34]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
11	Greenhouse gas balance and carbon footprint… [35]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
12	Integrating genome-wide association study and pathway analysis… [36]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	?	✔	Genomic analysis; ethics/consent often implicit
13	Relationship between volumetric water footprint… [37]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
14	Forage and animal production on palisadegrass pastures… [38]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
15	Grazing regime rather than grazing intensity… [39]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
16	Herbage accumulation, nutritive value and beef cattle production… [40]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
17	Human-edible protein contribution of tropical beef cattle production systems… [41]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
18	Impact of grass silage quality on greenhouse gas emissions… [42]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
19	Impacts of environmental feedbacks on the production… [43]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	System dynamics; sensitivity explored
20	Integrating forage legumes reduces dependence on N fertilizer… [44]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
21	Invited review: genetic decision tools for increasing cow efficiency… [45]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Narrative/systematic review; ethics N/A
22	Methane emissions and the use of desmanthus… [46]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
23	Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions… [47]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Narrative/systematic review; ethics N/A
24	Pasture intensification in beef cattle production… [48]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
25	Performance of Purunã beef heifers and pasture productivity… [49]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
26	Production and nutritive value of pastures… [50]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
27	Production of beef cattle grazing… [51]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
28	Productive efficiency of beef cattle production in Botswana… [52]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
29	Productivity of beef cattle grazing… [53]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
30	Prospects and problems: considerations for smallholder cattle grazing… [54]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
31	Public policies for low carbon emission agriculture… [55]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
32	Response of pasture nitrogen fertilization… [56]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
33	Review: strategies for enteric methane mitigation… [57]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Narrative/systematic review; ethics N/A
34	Silvopastoral management of beef cattle production… [58]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
35	Silvopastoral systems ecological strategy… [59]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
36	Socioeconomic and productive characteristics… [60]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
37	Soil carbon stock and humification in pastures… [61]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Environmental measurements; animal ethics where applicable
38	Spread of nontyphoidal Salmonella in the beef supply chain… [62]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
39	Steering the herd or missing the mark… [63]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
40	Sustainability indicators for cattle production system… [64]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Framework/index construction; ethics N/A
41	Sustainability of beef cattle farming production system… [65]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Framework/index construction; ethics N/A
42	Sustainable corporate models for beef cattle… [66]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
43	Tapping into the environmental co-benefits… [67]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Narrative/systematic review; ethics N/A
44	The inclusion of Leucaena diversifolia in a Colombian… [68]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
45	Unraveling genetic sensitivity of beef cattle… [69]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	?	✔	Genomic analysis; ethics/consent often implicit
46	Water requirements of beef production… [70]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	?	✔	Genomic analysis; ethics/consent often implicit
47	Whole cottonseed as an effective strategy… [71]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
48	An assessment of sustainability of dual-purpose… [72]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Framework/index construction; ethics N/A
49	Analysis of beef cattle’s potential as a leading commodity… [73]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
50	Analysis of strategy for developing beef cattle production… [74]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
51	Application of system dynamics modelling… [75]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	System dynamics; sensitivity explored
52	Bali cattle farming business… [76]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	Survey/econometrics; ethics N/A/implicit
53	Cattle-oil palm integration-a viable strategy… [77]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
54	CH4, CO2, and N2O emissions from grasslands and bovine excreta… [78]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Environmental measurements; animal ethics where applicable
55	Comprehensive assessment of greenhouse gas emissions… [79]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
56	Disharmony of policy laws and regulations… [80]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
57	Effectiveness-equity tradeoffs… [81]	✔	✔	?	?	✔	✔	N/A	✔	✔	✔	Policy/data synthesis; transparent limits
58	Effects of diet quality… [82]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
59	Effects of feeding and drinking behavior… [83]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	Field/animal trial; animal ethics indicated/assumed
60	Environmental impact assessment of beef cattle production… [84]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	N/A	✔	?	✔	LCA/modeling; ethics N/A; limitations partly stated
61	Exploring the impact of heat stress on feed efficiency… [85]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	?	✔	?	✔	Genomic analysis; ethics/consent often implicit

Legend: ✔ = met; ? = partial/unclear; N/A = not applicable.

and Figure 4) highlight the prioritisation of studies with strong, clear methods for the final synthesis.

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. Geographical distribution and leading themes of studies on tropical and subtropical beef systems (2019–2025).

Region	Tropical (n)	Subtropical (n)	Dominant Focus
Latin America (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Argentina)	28	3	On-farm production systems, silvopastoral integration, pasture-based beef systems, and GHG mitigation in tropical conditions.
Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand)	12		Feedlot policy and governance, smallholder integration in mixed crop–livestock systems, and sustainability transitions in tropical beef value chains.
Sub-Saharan Africa (South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania)	6		Management of grassland and rangeland, adaptive capacity, and resilience in extensive beef operations.
Oceania (Australia)	4	1	Enhancing feed efficiency, tropical adaptation of grazing systems, and life-cycle performance modelling under different climatic conditions.
North America (USA)		2	Comparative warm-season forage systems and subtropical beef cattle management models.
Europe (Norway)		1	Temperate benchmarking and feeding system comparison for global reference and emission baselines.
Global/multi-region (tropical focus)			Interregional comparisons of tropical beef systems, global policy coherence, and sustainability frameworks that combine production efficiency and welfare issues.

Note: Each region’s approximate number of studies (n = 61). Studies straddling the tropical–subtropical transition zones may exhibit a small rounding or overlap.

. 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.

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. Strategic synthesis of key findings using the PAGER framework.

Element	Synthesis	Representative Studies
Patterns (P)	The four converging sustainability levers are as follows: (i) forage/landscape design (silvopasture, Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forestry (ICLF)), (ii) legume inclusion and N management, (iii) adaptive diet strategies, and (iv) supportive policy/market instruments. Integrated systems consistently outperform single-factor interventions in terms of their effectiveness. Genotype-by-environment interactions shape efficiency, whereas socioeconomic constraints limit their adoption.	[25,30,38,40,44,46,48,49,55,58,59,61,67,78,79,81]
Advances (A)	Landscape-level mitigation via silvopasture/ICLF, legumes for nutrient autonomy, targeted feed innovations (Desmanthus, cottonseed, silage), genomic tools for heat/water-use efficiency, farm-to-regional decision-support models, and early policy experiments enabling low-carbon beef transitions.	[27,30,42,44,46,49,55,68,70,71,75,95]
Gaps (G)	The lack of standardised metrics (water, soil C, LCA), few long-term multi-location trials, limited equity-informed supply chain governance, poor integration of one-health risks, weak operationalisation of breeding–management synergies, and unclear economics and safeguards for palm–cattle integration are some of the challenges.	[25,61,62,80,81,85,90]
Evidence for Practice (E)	Silvopasture and ICLF systems have also been found to have multiple productive and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits, although the feasibility, trade-offs, and benefits of these systems are context-dependent and can be influenced by local laws and policies, socioeconomic conditions, land-use practices, and land-use and socio-political contexts. Incorporating legumes, improving silage use, cottonseed supplementation for dry seasons, and selecting for heat and water use efficiency are all potential options. Decision support tools, such as the Livestock Simulator for Generic Analysis of Animal Production Systems-Beef Cattle (LiGAPS-Beef), which can be used to perform system-based analysis of farming systems, and system dynamics modelling can be used to develop evidence-based policies. Among these options, pathways towards equity and deforestation-free policies, as well as structured palm-cattle integration, may be considered cautiously on a case-by-case basis, taking into account regional biophysical and institutional settings.	[30,44,46,48,49,53,55,56,57,58,71,77]
Research recommendations (R)	Prioritise long-term, multi-site trials of integrated systems; harmonise Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) protocols for water–N–C; integrate reaction norm genomics into decision rules; test equity-sensitive policy bundles; integrate microbial risks into sustainability assessments; and evaluate the economics and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliance of palm–cattle systems.	[27,33,43,72,75,84]

, 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.

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.