Is it worth to recuperate degraded pasturelands?
An evaluation of profits and costs from the perspective of livestock producers and extension agents in Honduras

F Holmann, P Argel*, L Rivas**, D White***, R D Estrada**** C Burgos*****, E Perez******, G Ramirez******* and A Medina********

Centro International de Agriculture Tropical (CIAT), and International Research Institute in Livestock (ILRI). Cali, Colombia: F.Holmann@cgiar.org
*CIAT. San José, Costa Rica P.Argel@cgiar.org
**CIAT. Cali, Colombia:  L.Rivas@cgiar.org
***CIAT. Cali, Colombia: D.White@cgiar.org
****CIP-CIAT. Cali, Colombia: R.Estrada@cgiar.org
*****Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria (DICTA). Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Conrado_Burgos@msn.com
******ILRI. Managua, Nicaragua:  Edwin.ilri@cablenet.com.ni
*******CIAT. Cali, Colombia: G.Ramirez@cgiar.org
********CIAT. Cali, Colombia:  A.Medina@cgiar.org

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to: (a) estimate milk and beef yields obtained from cows grazing pastures in different stages of degradation; (b) estimate income losses as a result of the degradation process; (c) estimate the proportion of pasture areas found in each stage of degradation within the six administrative regions of Honduras; and (d) identify different strategies and costs to recuperate degraded pastures. Data came from two surveys executed during a workshop carried out in March 2004. The subjective perceptions of 25 livestock producers and 8 extension agents of the 6 administrative regions of Honduras were obtained to estimate the losses of animal productivity within the farm, region, and country. A 4-level scoring of pasture degradation was defined - where 1 was for the best condition (i.e., non-apparent degradation) and 4 was for the worst (i.e., severe degradation). Regressions, explaining the animal productivity losses at each level of pasture degradation, were generated according to the subjective and descriptive information.

Comparing the perception of degraded areas, producers considered that in Honduras the extent of pasture degradation is lower compared with extension agents. According to producers, 29% of the pasture area in the country is at Level 1 (i.e., no degradation) compared with only 19% of extension agents. Moreover, producers perceived a lower proportion of pastures in severe degradation (i.e., Level 4, 27%) in comparison with almost 31% perceived by extension agents. In the intermediate degradation levels (i.e., Levels 2 and 3), both groups were similar.

The country is forgoing milk and beef production due to the process of pasture degradation. According to estimations from producers, Honduras is loosing 284,106 tonnes of fluid milk and 48,271 tonnes of beef (live weight) annually for having pasture areas in Level 4 (i.e., severe degradation), equivalent to 48% of the annual production of milk and to 37% of beef. In economic terms, these losses in milk and beef yields are worth US$63 and US$48 million annually, respectively. The perception of extension agents is even more alarming. Honduras could produce 66% more milk and 50% more beef annually if livestock producers renovated their pastures before they reached level 4, equivalent to US$94 million in less revenues from milk sales and US$66 million from less beef sales.

Both groups perceive that pastures, in an early stage of degradation (i.e., Level 2), are more economical, practical and rapid to recuperate. Also, as the process of degradation advances (i.e., to Levels 3 and 4), both cost and time of recuperating such pastures increase significantly. According to producers, the recuperation of a pasture from Level 4 to Level 1 costs $140/ha and takes almost a half year (i.e., 5.6 months). Extension agents estimate this cost of recuperation 27% higher ($178/ha) with 5% more time (i.e., 5.9 months).

Producers perceive that grasses spend proportionately less time in going from Level 1 to 2 (i.e., 2.9 years) and as the process of degradation continues, pastures remain longer at advanced degraded levels (i.e., 3.1 years in going from level 2 to 3, and around 4.0 years in going from level 3 to 4). Moreover, producers think that the average productive life of improved grasses is about 10 years, while extension agents think that grasses degrade faster, with an average productive life of 8.4 years, 16% less than producers.

According to producers and extension agents, pastures degrade at an annual rate of 10% and 12%, respectively. With these rates, Honduras would maintain its current level of degradation between levels 2.48 and 2.65. However, the renovation of pastures at an annual rate of 10-12% does not solve the problem, but maintains it. Producers argued that the current financial situation does not allow the necessary cash flow to renovate their plots, and the option of credit is not viable since real interest rates are high (ie., 10%). After simulating this scenario, it was demonstrated that farmers are able to generate the additional income necessary to pay a credit, but only if this credit is taken with interest rates similar to those found in the international market (ie., 3%).

In order to eliminate the degraded areas found in Level 4 at the country level, it is necessary a one-time investment of $57 million according to producers and $84 million according to extension agents. The benefit obtained from this investment would result in a daily increase of 156,000 liters of milk and 26,500 kilograms of beef, equivalent to $22 millions/yr. Therefore, there are significant economic and productive incentives for the private and public sectors to develop and execute a plan of action to recuperate pasturelands in advanced stages of degradation.

Key words: Cost benefit, degraded pstures, extension agents, producers

Introduction

The progressive displacement of cattle raising toward marginal areas of lower productive capacity is a generalized phenomenon in Tropical Latin America. The low availability of adapted forage materials of high productivity together with the inadequate management of pastures has led to a fast decrease of productivity and low revenues to livestock farmers. This circumstance has been documented in Brazil, where cattle raising moved from the south states to the Midwest (Serrão and Toledo 1989), in Colombia from the Northern Coast and the Inter-andean Valleys to the Orinoco and Amazon region (Vera and Rivas 1997), and in Central America from the fertile Pacific region to the Atlantic (Kaimowitz 1995).

In selected livestock watersheds in Central America, it was estimated that between 50% and 80% of pasture areas are in advanced stages of degradation with a stocking rate lower than 40% with regard to pastures receiving an appropriate management (CATIE 2002). Biophysical analyses show that improved grasses usually degrade after 5-7 years. In Central America, the annual rate of pasture renovation is estimated at 5% while the degradation rate is 12%, this explains the progressive increase of degraded areas in Central America (CATIE 2002).

The degradation process

Degradation is usually defined as the temporary or permanent decrease of the soil productive capacity in a given agricultural ecosystem (Stocking and Murnaghan 2001). Latin America is the region of the developing world having the largest degraded areas (Oldeman 1992). In the case of pastures, the process of degradation is linked to: (1) the establishment of pastures in fragile soils (i.e., slopes); (2) sowing of poorly adapted species; (3) overgrazing during the rainy season; (4) uncontrolled and frequent burning of pastures; and (5) nutrient depletion (Spain and Gualdrón 1991). The degradation of pastures brings serious consequences to the producer: first, it reduces milk and beef yields and second, it increases production costs.

Once the improved pasture is established, nitrogen deficiency is the first factor destabilizing the pasture, inducing the beginning of the degradation process. After nitrogen deficiency takes place, the quality and the vigor of the pasture begin to decline and an acute reduction of the biological activity is induced; then, other nutrients, such as phosphorus and sulfur, can appear as deficient. When the pasture begins to lose vigor, the invasion of weeds appears, increasing the problem even more (Spain and Gualdrón 1991).

After a prolonged period of grazing, it may be possible that important changes in the physical structure of the soil appear, such as compaction, which increases water runoff, diminishes root development, and the extraction of nutrients deeper in the soil. In addition, soil compaction, through water runoff, initiates the process of erosion and the pasture enters in a process of severe degradation (Hoyos et al 1995).

Subjective perceptions can be the most viable and unique source of information to estimate revenues or economic losses of complex processes, especially in tropical environments (Grisley and Kellogg 1983). Producers make decisions based on their experiences, knowledge, and available literature. Therefore, knowing about the perceptions of producers, and the extension agents who assist them, about the degradation process and its relationship to animal productivity, is very important in order to determine actions and formulate strategies for recuperating degraded pastures.

There are three advantages in adopting the perspective of producers to estimate the degree of degradation and its effect on animal productivity (Stocking and Murnaghan 2001): (1) measures are more realistic regarding the actual processes of degradation in the field; (2) evaluations make use of an integrated vision of the final user, the producer; and (3) results provide a more practical point of view in comparison with the type of interventions accepted by academics or advisers.

Objective

The general objective was to estimate the economic impact, at the farm and regional level, of losses in animal productivity and reduced incomes from the utilization of pastures under different stages of degradation, previously defined by selected groups of small livestock holders and extension agents in Honduras.

The specific objectives were to: (a) estimate milk and beef yields from cows grazing pastures at different stages of degradation; (b) estimate the income losses as a result of the degradation process; (c) estimate the proportion of pasture areas found in each stage of degradation within the six administrative regions of Honduras; and (d) identify different strategies and costs to recuperate degraded pastures.

Materials and Methods

The Workshop

The subjective perception of producers and extension agents was elicited in order to obtain the information to estimate losses of animal productivity within the farm, region, and country. For this purpose, a two-day workshop was carried out on March 16-17, 2004 where 25 producers of the 6 administrative regions of Honduras (South, Central Western, Atlantic, North-Eastern, Central Eastern, and North-Western) and 8 livestock extension agents of the Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria (DICTA) participated. This way, the exercise allowed the extrapolation of results not only within the farm but also regional in order to estimate the impact of pasture degradation on the entire Honduran livestock sector. The workshop took place in the city of Juticalpa, state of Olancho, in the North-Eastern region of Honduras.

Participating producers were chosen under the following criteria: (a) be a small livestock holder producing milk and/or beef for the market; (b) income should come mainly from the livestock activity; (c) live preferably in the farm; (d) have adopted and established improved grasses in the farm; and (e) have at least 10 years of experience producing milk and/or beef.

During the morning of the first day of the workshop, informal lectures were given in order to explain the concept of pasture degradation and methodology to be used. A scoring of 4 levels of pasture degradation was defined: Level 1 being the best (i.e., non-apparent degradation) and 4 the worst (i.e., severe degradation) using the methodology developed by Barcellos (1986) described in Table 1. The five descriptive factors for estimating the quality of the pasture included color, dead matter, uncovered soil, presence of weeds and age of pasture since establishment.

Then, two surveys were explained in detail, which each participant had to complete. The first one consisted in estimating the expected milk and beef yields and the stocking rate of animals grazing pastures under each of the 4 levels of degradation, in both rainy and dry seasons. A copy of both surveys can be found in Holmann et al (2004).

The second survey consisted in estimating: (a) the proportion of total pasture area found in each of the 4 levels of degradation in the region where each producer came from (the livestock extension agents were requested to answer this question at national level, not regional); (b) identification of the strategy to recuperate pastures under each of the 4 levels of degradation, adding the corresponding costs and estimated time; and (c) the critical level of degradation in which to start investing resources to recuperate it.

Participants were divided in four groups. Each group was a mixture of producers from each of the 6 regions and two extension agents. Each group received a set of information containing: (a) a copy of Table 1; and (b) color photos with samples of each level of degradation to facilitate the completion of both surveys. These photos were shown during the lecture where the concept of pasture degradation was explained. Thus, participants were already familiar with these pictures. The distributed photos can be found in Holmann et al (2004).

With these defined levels of degradation, three farms (close to Juticalpa) were chosen in a previous visit one month before the workshop which had pasture plots at different levels of degradation. After selecting the plots that would be visited during the workshop, the producer was requested not to allow grazing in those pastures, so that, at the time of the visit, the plots would be in the best possible condition to reduce the bias from grazing.

Participants visited these farms together in the afternoon of the first day of the workshop. Seven 1/3-ha plots representing the four levels of degradation were visited. After a 30-minute walk in each plot the survey was completed. The color photographs of each of the seven visited plots can be found in Holmann et al (2004).

At the end of the afternoon, participants completed the second survey, and both surveys were delivered to the first author of the study. During the second day, results from both surveys were presented using as example the North-Eastern region in order to provoke discussion.

Statistical analysis

Data from both surveys were entered into an Excel database for analysis using the statistical software SAS (Statistical Analysis System, version 8.2). For the analysis of the first survey containing 227 items, descriptive statistics were obtained, and regressions were generated which best explained animal yield losses at each level of pasture degradation.

For the analysis of the second survey containing 33 items, the SPSS statistical software was used (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 10) to generate simple and crossed descriptive statistics and frequency tables.

Estimation of milk and beef yields in areas of permanent pastures

In order to estimate the production of milk and beef for each degradation level, the following formulae were used:

The milk yield was estimated through the application of the following equation:

(1) Y = (A_n * {[(MY_{Rain-Level n} * (M/12) ] + [(MY_{Dry-Level n} * (1-M/12)]} * 0.25 * 365) /1000

where

Y = milk yield, in metric tonnes of fluid milk per year
A_n = area of the n region with permanent pastures, in hectares
MY_{Rain-Level n} = milk yield, in kg/ha/day, during the rainy season, according to the regressions of Table 2 for each level of degradation
M = months of duration of the rainy season
MY_{Dry-Level n} = milk yield, in kg/ha/day, during the dry season, estimated according to the regressions of Table 2 for each level of degradation
0.25 = factor representing the national average of cows in permanent milking (i.e., 25%) as a percentage of the national herd
365 = number of days in one year
1000 = factor to convert kilograms to metric tonnes

The beef yield was estimated through the application of the following equation:

(2) Y = (A_n * {[ (BY_{Rain-Level n} * (M/12) ] + [ (BY_{Dry-Level n} * (1-M/12)]} * 0.49 * 365)/ 1000

where

Y = yield of beef of growing females and males, in metric tonnes of live weight gains per year
A_n = area of the n region with permanent pastures, in hectares
BY_{Rain-Level n} = beef yield, in kg/ha/day of livestock, during the rainy season, estimated according to the regressions of Table 2 for each level of degradation
M = months of duration of the rainy season
BY_{Dry-Level n} = beef yield, in kg/ha/day of livestock, during the dry season estimated according to the regressions of Table 2 for each level of degradation
0.49 = factor representing the national average of growing females and males (i.e., 49%) as a percentage of the national herd
365 = number of days in one year
1000 = factor to convert kilograms to metric tonnes

The estimation of the annual milk yield by producers in each region and by extension agents at national level, was then compared with the official data in order to determine the degree of certainty of the subjective perceptions. The annual estimate of the beef yield was not possible to compare with the official data. This was due to the fact that official data only reports animals slaughtered annually and not the weight gain increases of all growing females and males, which was the goal of this study.

Estimation of productivity and income losses

In order to estimate the loss in milk yield due to the degradation process, Equation 1 (described previously) was applied. For example, in order to estimate the loss in milk yield within areas with pastures at Level 4 by not being at Level 1, Equation 1 is applied twice. The first time is to estimate the quantity of milk that could be produced in Level 4 areas if they were at Level 1. The second time is for estimating the actual quantity of milk produced at Level 4. Subtracting the result of the first application from the second give us the quantity of milk forgone due to having pastures at Level 4.

Y = (A_{level 4} * {[ (MY_{Rain-Level 1} * (D/12) ] + [ (MY_{Dry-Level 1} * (1-D/12)]} * 0.25 * 365)/1000 - (A_{level 4} * {[ (MY_{Rain-Level 4} * (D/12) ] + [ (MY_{Dry-Level 4} * (1-D/12)]} * 0.25 * 365)/ 1000

This exercise was repeated three times. The first one for estimating the quantity of milk forgone in pastures having a Level 2 degradation. The second exercise was for estimating the milk yield forgone in pasture areas with Level 3, and the third exercise was for estimating the milk yield forgone in pasture areas with Level 4. This same process was repeated for estimating beef yield losses using Equation 2.

In order to estimate the income losses, as a result of the reduction of milk and beef yields due to the degradation process, the losses in milk and beef production at each level of degradation were multiplied by the prices of milk and beef reported in Table 9.

Estimation of recuperating degraded pasture areas

In order to estimate the cost of recuperating regional and national areas at different levels of degradation, the weighted average costs/ha were multiplied by the pasture areas at each degradation level.

Results and Discussion

Perception of milk and beef yield reductions in the degradation process

Table 2 contains the regressions generated from the survey information which best explained the productivity loss of milk and beef according to season of the year. With these regressions, estimated losses in production of milk and beef for each degradation level and region of the country were generated, in terms of volumes (i.e., tonnes of beef and milk annually) and revenues (i.e., million dollars per year). These regressions were linear in the Southern, Atlantic, Central Eastern and North-Western regions, and for livestock extension agents; and exponential in the Central Western and North-Eastern regions (Table 2).

Table 2. Regressions for estimating the response in milk and beef yield per hectare by season of the year and region in Honduras
Region	Milk yield, kg/ha/day		Beef yield, gr/ha/day
	Rainy season	Dry season	Rainy season	Dry season
South	y = 14.37 – 3.59x	y = 8.97 – 2.36x	y = 988 – 237x	y = 475 – 124x
Central Western	y = 31.18e-0.88x	y = 31.01e-1.56x	y = 3135e-1.21x	y =  2122e-1.75x
Atlantic	y = 13.51 – 2.89x	y = 13.68 – 3.21x	y = 703 – 133x	y = 1555 – 408x
North-Eastern	y = 24.09e-0.56x	y = 11.28e-0.63x	y = 2319e-0.61x	y =  901e-0.66x
Central Eastern	y = 10.00 – 2.11x	y = 4.22 – 1.04x	y = 1782 – 439x	y = 661 – 176x
North Western	y = 16.43 – 3.86x	y = 4.96 – 1.30x	y = 1232 – 308x	y = 164 – 47x
Extension agents	y = 20.30 – 4.67x	y = 7.76 – 1.97x	y = 1644 – 389x	y = 454 – 131x
y = milk or beef yield (i.e., in kg/ha/day);  x = degradation level (i.e., 1, 2, 3 or 4)

Figures 1 and 2 show the production of milk and beef for each degradation level generated from these regressions. As observed, there was the general trend to associate low milk and beef yields and low stocking rates as the degradation process increased, which was expected.

Figure 1. Perceived milk yield by level of degradation.

Figure 2. Perceived beef yield by level of degradation

Pasture areas in each level of degradation

Table 3 contains the national livestock inventory and the areas under permanent pastures for each of the 6 administrative regions of Honduras.

Table 3. Livestock inventory, permanent pasture areas, and animal stocking rate by administrative region in Honduras, according to the 1997 agricultural and livestock census
Region	Livestock Inventory				Pasture area, ha
	Total heads	Adult cows		Males and growing females
		Milking1	Dry
South	258,344	44,394	46,206	167,744	173,174
Central Western	130,020	23,932	24,908	81,180	112,502
Atlantic	237,316	44,345	46,155	146,816	145,859
North-Eastern	404,976	68,941	71,755	264,280	387,220
Central Eastern	257,385	40,847	42,514	174,024	208,501
North-Western	772,742	120,260	125,169	527,313	508,407
TOTAL	2,060,783	342,720	356,706	1,361,357	1,535,663
1According to IICA (2003), 49% of the inventory of adult cows are in permanent milking Source: Dirección General de Estadística y Censo (1998); FAO (2004)

Table 4 shows the production of milk and beef by region during the year 2003. As observed, there are a little over 1.5 million hectares under permanent pastures with more than 2 million head of cattle distributed among more than 100,000 livestock farms that produced some 597,000 tonnes  of fluid milk and 57,000 tonnes of beef.

Table 4. Number of farms, milk and beef production, and average farm size for each of the six administrative regions of Honduras in 2003
Region	Number of Farms	Annual milk yield, tonnes fluid milk	Annual beef yield, tonnes	Average Farm Size
				cows/farm	ha/farm
South	15,335	77,329	7,022	5.9	11.3
Central Western	15,520	41,686	3,398	3.1	7.2
Atlantic	6,305	77,244	6,147	14.3	23.1
North-Eastern	18,722	120,087	11,065	7.5	20.7
Central Eastern	15,487	71,151	7,286	5.4	13.5
North-Western	30,177	209,4780	22,077	8.1	16.8
TOTAL	101,276	597,000 a	57,000	6.9	15.2
a The average yield by milking cows during 2003 was of 4.8 kg/day Source: Dirección General de Estadística y Censo (1998); IICA (2003); FAO (2004)

When participants were asked to estimate the proportion of pasture area within their regions found in each level of degradation, the answer was variable (Table 5). The North-Eastern region showed the highest proportion (and quantity) of area with degradation problems, since it has the greater proportion with moderate (i.e., Level 3, 32%) and severe degradation (i.e., Level 4, 38%). The Southern region has less degradation problems, since more than 66% of the pasture area is between Levels 1 (43%) and 2 (23%). The other regions were in between these two extremes.

Table 5. Estimated proportion of pastures for each level of degradation by region in Honduras
Region	Level of degradation1
	Level 1 (Non-apparent)		Level 2 (Low)		Level 3 (Moderated)		Level 4 (Severe)
	Proportion, %	Area, ha	Proportion, %	Area, ha	Proportion, %	Area, ha	Proportion, %	Area, ha
South	43.3	74,984	23.3	40,349	13.3	23,032	20.0	34,635
Central Western	30.0	33,751	16.7	18,788	23.3	26,212	30.0	33,751
Atlantic	26.7	38,944	16.7	24,358	28.3	41,278	28.3	41,278
North-Eastern	15.6	60,400	13.8	53,436	32.5	125,847	38.1	147,531
Central Eastern	23.3	48,581	23.3	48,580	25.0	52,125	28.4	59,214
North Western	34.0	172,858	28.0	142,354	20.0	101,681	18.0	91,513
Average Producers	28.8	429,518	20.3	327,865	23.7	370,175	27.1	407,922
Extension agents	18.8	288,705	28.1	431,521	22.5	345,524	30.6	469,913
1 Mean degradation level for the country is 2.48 and 2.65, according to producers and extension agents, respectively

Comparing the perception of degraded areas between livestock producers and extension agents, the latter perceive a lower problem of degradation. According to producers, in Honduras 29% of the area under pastures is in Level 1 (i.e., no degradation) in comparison with 19% perceived by extension agents. In addition, producers perceive a smaller proportion of pastures in conditions of severe degradation (i.e., Level 4, 27%) compared with almost 31% perceived by extension agents. At the intermediate degradation levels (i.e., Levels 2 and 3) both groups were similar.

Production of milk and beef perceived at each degradation level

Table 6 shows the production of milk and beef that livestock producers and extension agents perceive based on the pasture areas found in each degradation level. These data were obtained through the application of the regressions in Table 2 based on the methodology described earlier.

Table 6.  Estimated production* of milk and beef for each level of degradation
Region	Degradation level								Total		Difference with official data %
	Level 1 (non-apparent)		Level 2 (low)		Level 3 (Moderate)		Level 4 (Severe)
	Fluid milk production (tonnes/yr	Weight gains, tonnes/yr	Fluid milk production tonnes/yr	Weight gains tonnes/yr	Fluid milk production tonnes/yr	Weight gains tonnes/yr	Fluid milk production tonnes/yr	Weight gains tonnes/yr	Fluid milk yield tonnes/yr	Live cattle yield tonnes/yr
South	57,065	6,947	20,177	2,497	5,464	721	0	31	82,706	10,196	+ 7.0
Central Western	28,303	3,652	5,195	514	2,631	197	1,294	66	37,423	4,429	- 10.2
Atlantic	37,633	4,639	17,003	2,152	17,703	2,274	6,629	1,144	78,968	10,209	+ 2.2
North Eastern	54,459	9,324	26,964	4,425	35,484	5,582	23,290	3,509	140,196	22,840	+ 16.8
Central Eastern	24,515	7,941	17,554	5,265	11,320	2,787	4,377	- 85	57,766	15,908	- 18.8
North Western	128,079	16,076	71,964	8,733	27,464	3,001	3,173	- 196	230,680	27,614	+ 10.1
Total Producers	330,054	48,579	158,857	23,586	100,066	14,562	38,763	4,469	627,739	91,196	+ 5.2
Extension agents	281,884	40,688	290,991	40,827	128,008	16,562	32,160	756	733,043	98,833	+ 22.8
*  Estimates obtained from the regressions in Table 2 and pasture areas for each level of degradation reported in Table 5

Comparing milk and beef yields between producers and extension agents, the latter perceive a higher production of both milk and beef at the extreme degradation levels (i.e., Levels 1 and 4) and a lower production in the intermediate levels (i.e., Levels 2 and 3). However, once the total production is consolidated, extension agents perceive that Honduras produces 17% more milk and 8% more beef than the volumes perceived by producers. Comparing the milk yield estimates against the official data reported by the Government of Honduras, producers overestimated milk production by 5% while extension agents overestimated it by 23%.

Forgone milk and beef production as a result of the degradation process

Table 7 shows the annual milk yield that each region forgoes for having pasture areas at various degradation levels different to Level 1. In other words, it is the quantity of additional milk that each region could produce if all areas under permanent pastures were at Level 1.

Table 7.  Estimates of milk production forgone due to the process of pasture degradation with respect to level 1
Region	Milk production forgone, tonnes/year			Total
	Level 2 (Low)	Level 3 (Moderate)	Level 4 (Severe)
South	10,530	12,064	23,984	46,578
Central Western	10,560	19,350	27,009	56,919
Atlantic	6,535	22,185	33,259	61,979
North-Eastern	21,211	77,973	109,717	208,901
Central Eastern	6,959	14,983	25,503	47,445
North-Western	56,115	47,877	64,634	168,626
Total producers	111,910	194,432	284,106	590,448
Extension agents	105,528	189,490	399,637	694,655

Table 8 shows the same information for beef production.

Table 8. Estimates of beef production forgone due to the process of pasture degradation with respect to level 1
Region	Beef weight gain forgone, tonnes/year			Total
	Level 2 (Low)	Level 3  (Moderate)	Level 4 (Severe)
South	1,241	1,413	3,178	5,832
Central Western	1,519	2,639	3,586	7,744
Atlantic	749	2,642	3,773	7,164
North-Eastern	3,822	13,842	19,262	36,926
Central Eastern	2,676	5,734	9,765	18,175
North-Western	4,506	6,456	8,707	19,669
Total producers	14,513	32,726	48,271	95,510
Extension agents	20,128	32,134	65,471	117,733

Table 9 reports producer farm gate prices per tonne of milk and beef in 2004, US$/tonne during dry and rainy seasons

Table 9.  Producer farmgate prices per ton of milk and beef in 2004, US$/tonne a
Region	Length of rainy season, months	Milk price			Beef price
		Rainy	Dry	Mean Price1	Rainy	Dry	Mean price1
South	5	146	315	245	1020	1070	1050
Central Western	5	236	309	279	990	990	990
Atlantic	10	266	266	266	990	990	990
North-Eastern	6	112	281	197	990	990	990
Central Eastern	6	185	253	219	990	1010	1000
North-Western	6	169	253	211	990	990	990
Mean	6.3	186	280	236	1000	1010	1000
a Based on an exchange rate of Lps 17.80 per US$1 1 Price per tonne of fluid milk and beef

Milk

The milk yield that the country forgoes due to the process of pasture degradation is significant. According to the subjective perception of producers, Honduras is not producing 284,106 tonnes of fluid milk per year because it has pasture areas at Level 4 (i.e., severe degradation), equivalent to 48% of the national production of milk (Table 7).

That is, if both public and private sectors carry out a strategy for producers to maintain their grazing areas between Levels 1 and 3 (i.e., not allowing pasture areas to reach Level 4), Honduras, according to producers, could produce today 48% more milk with the same cows in the same pasture areas. In economic terms, this forgone milk is worth $63 million annually (Table 10). The perception of extension agents is that Honduras could produce 66% more milk if producers renovate their pastures before they reach Level 4, which represents $94 million annually in revenue.

Table 10. Estimates of forgone revenues as a result of reduced milk yields due to the process of pasture degradation with respect to level 1, million US$/year
Region	Forgone revenue as a result of reduced milk yields			Total
	Level 2 (Low)	Level 3  (Moderate)	Level 4 (Severe)
South	2.58	2.95	5.88	11.41
Central Western	2.95	5.40	7.53	15.88
Atlantic	1.74	5.90	8.85	16.49
North-Eastern	4.18	15.36	21.61	41.15
Central Eastern	1.52	3.28	5.59	10.39
North-Western	11.84	10.10	13.64	35.58
Total producers	24.81	42.99	63.10	130.90
Extension agents	24.90	44.72	94.31	163.93

Beef

According to the subjective perception of producers, the country forgoes weight gains equivalent to 48,271 tonnes of beef annually by having grazing areas in Level 4 (Table 8). Honduras slaughters around 345,000 animals per year producing about 130,000 tonnes of beef. Thus, producers perceive that the country could produce 37% more beef if pasture areas currently under Level 4 were in Level 1, equivalent to $48 millions (Table 11). Likewise, extension agents consider that the weight gains forgone by having pasture areas in Level 4 is higher (i.e., 65,471 tonnes of beef, equivalent to 50% of the annual beef production of Honduras), equivalent to $65 millions.

Table 11. Estimates of forgone revenues as a result of reduced beef yields due to the process of pasture degradation with respect to level 1
Region	Forgone revenues as a result of reduced beef yield, million US$/year			Total
	Level 2 (Low)	Level 3  (Moderate)	Level 4 (Severe)
South	1.30	1.48	3.34	6.12
Central Western	1.50	2.61	3.55	7.66
Atlantic	0.74	2.62	3.74	7.10
North-Eastern	3.78	13.70	19.07	36.56
Central Eastern	2.68	5.73	9.77	18.18
North-Western	4.46	6.39	8.62	19.47
Total producers	14.46	32.53	48.09	95.08
Extension agents	20.13	32.13	65.47	117.73

Strategies to recuperate degraded pasturelands

Table 12 shows the strategies and costs to recuperate pastures which are in different stages of degradation according to the perception of producers.

Table 12.  Strategies utilized by producers to recuperate pastures in different levels of degradation. Figures in parenthesis represent the proportion of people that would use the particular strategy
Strategy (n=25)	Cost and time to recuperate degraded pastures
	From Level 2 to Level 1		From Level 3 to Level 1		From Level 4 to Level 1
	Time, months	Cost, $/ha	Time, months	Cost, $/ha	Time, months	Cost, $/ha
a) Let pasture rest	2.4 (40 %)	0	2.0, (8 %)	0
b) Let pasture rest until seeding occurs	3.8 (12 %)	0	6.0 (4 %)	0	12.0 (4 %)	0
c) Planting a legume associated with a grass	2.5 (4 %)	111	2.5 (4 %)	33
d) Intensive grazing until biomass is low, then plow with tractor and let pasture rest					4.0 (20 %)	161
e) Fertilize, then let pasture rest	2.2 (44 %)	55	2.5 (44 %)	63	2.0 (4 %)	39
f) Re-plant areas infested with weeds, then let pasture rest			4.0 (32 %)	88	4.5 (8 %)	97
g) Establish pasture again			5.0 (8 %)	115	6.0 (64 %)	154
Weighted average	2.5	29	3.4	66	5.6	140

Table 13 shows the same information from extension agents. Both groups perceive that it is more economical, practical and faster to recuperate degraded pastures in their early stages (i.e., Level 2) and, as the process of degradation advances (i.e., to Levels 3 and 4), the cost of recuperating these pastures increases significantly as well as the time to recover them.

Table 13.  Strategies recommended by extension agents to recuperate pastures in different levels of degradation. Figures in parenthesis represent the proportion of people that would use the particular strategy
Strategy (n=8)	Cost and time to recuperate degraded pastures
	From Level  2 to  Level 1		From Level 3 to Level 1		From Level  4 to Level  1
	Time, months	Cost, $/ha	Time, months	Cost, $/ha	Time, months	Cost, $/ha
a) Let pasture rest	3.0 (25 %)	0
b) Let pasture rest until seeding occurs	3.0 (12.5 %)	0	4.5 (25 %)	0
c) Planting a legume associated with a grass
d) Intensive grazing until biomass is low, then plow with tractor and let pasture rest
e) Fertilize, then let pasture rest	2.2 (62.5 %)	46	2.5 (25 %)	83
f) Re-plant areas infested with weeds, then let pasture rest			4 (50 %)	115	5.0 (12.5 %)	139
g) Establish pasture again					6.0 (87.5 %)	184
Weighted average	2.5	29	3.7	78	5.9	178

Going from Level 2 to 1

Both groups perceived that the recuperation of a pasture from Level 2 to Level 1 is worth around $29/ha and takes about 2.5 months resting time. A group of producers (44%) chose the strategy of pasture fertilization (with an average cost of $55/ha) then a rest period of 2.2 months. This option was also the most frequent recommendation by extension agents (63%). A second group of producers (40%) considered that a resting period of 2.4 months would be sufficient for full recovering (i.e., no cash expenses). About 25% of extension agents recommended this strategy but the resting period was longer (i.e., 3 months). A smaller group of producers (12%) would let the pasture rest longer until seed bearing (i.e., 3.8 months). Extension agents advising this strategy (12%) recommended a shorter period of resting time (i.e., 3 months).

The estimated cost, at the national level, to recuperate pasture areas in Level 2 is about $9.5 million according to producers and $12.5 million according extension agents (Table 14). This amount represents, in the opinion of producers, 24% of the forgone revenues from milk and beef (i.e., $39 million, Tables 10 and 11). In the opinion of extension agents, this cost for pasture recuperation represents 28% of the $45 million in forgone revenues.

Table 14.  Cost of recuperating degraded pastures to Level 1 for each region of Honduras, million US$
Region	Level 2		Level 3		Level 4
	Area, ha	Recovering cost	Area, ha	Recovering cost	Area, ha	Recovering cost
South	40,349	1.17	23,032	1.52	34,635	4.85
Central Western	18,788	0.54	26,212	1.73	33,751	4.73
Atlantic	24,358	0.71	41,278	2.72	41,278	5.78
North-Eastern	53,436	1.55	125,847	8.31	147,531	20.65
Central Eastern	48,80	1.1	52,25	3.4	59,14	8.9
North Western	142,354	4.13	101,681	6.71	91,513	12.81
Total  Producers	327,865	9.51	370,175	24.43	407,922	57.11
Extension agents	431,521	12.51	345,524	26.95	469,913	83.64

Going from Level 3 to 1

According to producers, to recuperate a pasture from Level 3 to Level 1 costs $66/ha and takes about 3.4 months of resting time. Extension agents perceive that the recuperation cost would be 18% higher ($78/ha) and would take 9% longer time (i.e., 3.7 months) than the one reported by producers. Most producers (76%) would try to recuperate this level of degradation by either fertilizing the pasture (44%) or replanting the areas infested with weeds (32%) and then let the pasture rest. About 75% of extension agents answered similarly. On the other hand, when the costs of recovering degraded pastures are compared between Levels 2 and 3, producers estimate that recuperating a pasture from Level 3 is 128% more expensive than recovering it from Level 2 (i.e., $66/ha vs. $29/ha, Table 12) and takes 36% more time (i.e. 3.4 months vs. 2.5 months). The perception of extension agents is more pessimist: they consider that recovering a pasture from Level 3 is 170% more expensive than recovering it from Level 2 (i.e., $78/ha vs. $29/ha, Table 13) and takes 48% more time.

The estimated cost, at the national level, to recover the areas which are in Level 3 is about $24 million according to producers and $27 million according to extension agents (Table 14). This amount represents, in the opinion of producers, 32% of the $75 million in forgone revenues from reduced milk and beef yields (Tables 10 and 11). According to extension agents, this amount represents 35% of the $77 million in forgone revenues from lower milk and beef production.

Going from Level 4 to 1

According to producers, the recuperation of a pasture from Level 4 to Level 1 costs about $140/ha and takes almost half year (i.e., 5.6 months). Extension agents perceive that the recuperation cost would be 27% higher ($178/ha) and would take 5% more time (i.e., 5.9 months) than the one reported by producers.

Most producers (64%) considered that the best strategy to recover a pasture in this level of degradation is to completely establish the pasture again at a cost of $154/ha and to wait 6 months. About 87% of extension agents would also recommend this strategy but at a higher cost, $184/ha. The establishment of a pasture implied in all cases soil preparation with machinery or animal traction, application of herbicides, seed planting, and application of fertilization (i.e., NPK)

A second group of producers (20%) would recuperate pastures in this level of degradation by grazing the plot intensively, then apply several passes of harrow with a tractor at a cost of $161/ha, plus a resting period of 4 months. The rest of extension agents (13%) would recommend the strategy of replanting the infested areas with weeds at a cost of $139/ha, plus a resting period of 4 months.

The estimated cost, at the national level, to recuperate areas under Level 4 of degradation is about $57 million according to producers, and $84 million perceived by extension agents (Table 14). This amount represents, in the opinion of producers, 51% of the $111 million in forgone revenues for milk and beef yield reductions (Tables 10 and 11). Additionally, in the opinion of extension agents, this amount represents 52% of the $160 million in forgone revenues from lower animal productivity.

Useful life of improved grasses throughout the degradation process

On average, producers perceive that grasses take proportionately less time in going from Level 1 to 2 (i.e., 2.9 years) and as the process of degradation advances, pastures remain longer at each degraded level (i.e., 3.1 years in going from Level 2 to 3 and around 4.0 years in going from level 3 to 4). Moreover, producers perceive that the mean productive life of improved grasses is approximately 10 years, ranging from 9 years for Brachiaria humidicola and Digitaria swazilandensis up to 12.3 years for "Star grass" (Cynodon nlemfuensis, Table 15).

Table 15.  Estimated life a pasture spends in each level of degradation until the process is completed, according to the perception of producers, years
Species	Level 1 to 2	Level 2 to 3	Level 3 to 4	Total Useful Life
Bracharia decumbens (n = 12)	3.21	3.13	3.58	9.92
Bracharia hybrid (Mulato) (n = 8)	2.25	3.25	4.31	9.81
Panicum maximum (Tanzania) (n = 3)	3.33	3.00	4.33	10.66
Cynodon nlemfuensis (Star) (n = 3)	4.67	2.33	5.33	12.33
Digitaria swazilandensis (n = 1)	2.00	3.00	4.00	9.00
Bracharia humidicola (n = 1)	1.00	4.00	4.00	9.00
Andropogon gayanus (n = 5)	2.30	3.30	4.00	9.60
Bracharia brizantha  (Marandú) (n = 8)	2.75	2.75	3.90	9.40
Panicum maximum (Guinea) (n = 2)	4.25	3.00	3.50	10.75
Panicum hybridum (King grass) (n = 1)	3.00	4.00	5.00	12.00
Bracharia brizantha (Toledo), (n = 3)	2.17	3.17	4.00	9.34
Average (n = 47)	2.87	3.07	4.03	9.97

On the other hand, extension agents perceive that grasses degrade faster, with a productive life of 8.4 years, 16% lower than producers, ranging from 6 years for Digitaria swazilandensis up to 12 years for Brachiaria Brizantha cv. Marandú (Table 16).

Table 16.  Estimated life a pasture spends in each level of degradation until the process is completed, according to the perception of extension agents, years
Species	Level 1 to 2	Level 2 to 3	Level 3 to 4	Total Useful Life
Bracharia decumbens (n = 2)	3.00	3.40	4.00	10.40
Bracharia hybrid (Mulato) (n = 3)	1.83	2.67	3.33	7.83
Cynodon nlemfuensis (Estrella) (n = 2)	2.50	2.50	2.50	7.50
Digitaria swazilandensis (n = 1)	1.00	2.00	3.00	6.00
Bracharia humidicola (n = 1)	1.00	3.00	4.00	8.00
Andropogon gayanus (n = 1)	4.00	2.00	1.00	7.00
Bracharia brizantha (Marandú) (n = 1)	5.00	4.00	3.00	12.00
Panicum maximum (Guinea) (n = 2)	3.50	1.50	2.00	7.00
Bracharia brizantha (Toledo) (n = 2)	2.00	4.00	5.00	11.00
Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda) (n = 1)	3.00	2.00	1.00	6.00
Average (n = 16)	2.60	2.73	3.06	8.39

When to start recuperating degraded pastures

When producers were asked for the critical level of degradation at which they would start investing resources to recuperate their pastures, the answer was Level 2.7. Extension agents would recommend to start investing resources when a pasture reaches Level 2.6. As a reference, the average level of pasture degradation in Honduras is, according to producers, 2.48, and for extension agents, 2.65 (Table 5).

Producers and extension agents perceive that pastures degrade at an annual rate of 10% and 11.9%, respectively (Tables 15 and 16). At these rates, Honduras would maintain the current degradation levels. That is, in order to maintain these levels, producers should renew annually between 10% and 12% of the total pasture area of each farm. However, the recuperation of pastures at a 10-12% annual rate does not solve the problem, only maintains it.

Producers from the Atlantic, North-Eastern and North-Western regions would await up to Levels 3.3, 3.2 and 3.0 respectively, before starting investing resources to recuperate pastures, while producers from the Southern, Central Western, and Central Eastern regions would do it earlier (i.e., when the level of degradation reaches 2.3) (Table 17).

Table 17.  Level of pasture degradation perceived as critical to start investing resources to recuperate it.  Ranges of responses are in parenthesis
Region	Critical level of degradation
South (n=3)	2.3 (2 – 3)
Central Western (n=3)	2.3 (2 – 3)
Atlantic (n=3)	3.3 (2 – 4)
North Eastern (n=8)	3.2 (2 – 4)
Central Eastern (n=3)	2.3 (2 – 3)
North Western (n=5)	3.0 (2 – 4)
Total producers (n=25)	2.7 (2 – 3.5)
Extension agents (n=8)	2.6 (2 – 4)

Most producers argued that their current financial situation does not allow them to generate enough cash flow to invest resources to recuperate their pastures, and the option of credit is not viable because the current real interest rate is expensive (10%) and difficult to obtain. In order to verify this argument, we took as a case study the mean farm size from the last census of Honduras, which corresponds to a 15 ha-farm with a herd of 7 cows (Table 4). The season to recuperate pastures is during the rains, which coincides with a drop in the producer price of milk of about 34% due to excess supply from good weather conditions (i.e., $0.186/kg vs. $0.28/kg, Table 9). On the other hand, milk yield increases during the rains. Therefore, a cash flow was simulated based on the gross incomes from both seasons (Figure 3) and based on these resources Table 18 was constructed to simulate two scenarios: (1) the current situation of degraded pastures, represented by the national average (i.e., 30% of the pasture area at Level 1, 25% at Level 2, 25% at Level 3, and the remaining 25% at Level 4, Table 13) with the target of maintaining this current level [ie., renovating 10% of pasture area annually (i.e., 1.5 ha)]; and (2) the ideal situation, represented by the elimination of all grazing areas under Level 4 (ie., 3.75 ha).

Figure 3. Monthly gross income during dry and rainy seasons in a representative farm of Honduras

As observed in Table 18, with the current situation the gross income during the rainy season is about $861 (~$143/month) in comparison with $640 during the dry season (~$107/month). Assuming the producer uses this difference in revenue to renovate his pastures, there is barely enough resources for 1.5 ha ($221 @ $140/ha) equivalent to 10% of total grazing area. Thus, with the increase in gross income during the rainy season, the producer is able to maintain the current level of pasture degradation in the farm but unable to recuperate the remaining areas under Level 4 with existing farm resources. Under the ideal situation scenario (i.e., a farm without Level 4), if the producer could obtain a 18-month credit with a similar interest rate existing in the international market (i.e., 3%), then the producer is able to generate the additional income to pay the credit with the increase in milk yield the following year resulting from higher quality forage available.

Table 18.  Required resources for a representative farm of Honduras to renovated degraded pastures in two scenarios
Scenario	Degradation Level 1, %	Area to renovate, ha 2	Milk yield, kg milk/ha/day 3		Gross income4 by season of the year, US$/farm/season		Available resources5 during the rainy season to renovate degraded pastures
			Rainy Season	Dry season	Rainy Season	Dry season	Resources, US$/Farm	Area6 that can be renovated
Current Situation	30-25-25-25	1.5	5.98	2.73	861	640	221	1.47
Ideal Situation	40-30-30-0	3.75	7.79	3.74	1072	817	609	4.06
1Proportion of grazing area at each degradation level (i.e., under the Current Situation, 30% of grazing area is with pastures in Level 1, 25% in Level 2, 25% in Level 3, and the remaining 25% in Level 4). 2 In the Current Situation scenario, this area is equivalent to 10%, which is the rate necessary to replace the pasture according to the useful life of 10 years perceived by producers. In the Ideal Situation scenario, it is necessary to renovate 25% of the grazing area (i.e., 3.75 has) in order to eliminate all pastures in Level 4. 3Yield based on the equations described in Table 2 4It includes the sale of 1 culled cow annually (300 kg @ $0.55/kg live weight) and 2 weaned male calves (90 kg each @ $0.90/kg live weight). The rainy season lasts 6 months and the dry season the remaining 6 months. It was assumed that 49% of adult cows are in permanent milking. 5For the Current Situation scenario, available resources for pasture renovation is the difference between the income obtained during the rainy season and the dry season. For the Ideal Situation scenario, available resources are the difference between the Ideal Situation and the Current one plus the difference between the income obtained during the rainy and the dry seasons. 6Assuming an establishment cost of US$150/ha.

In order to eliminate the degraded areas found in Level 4 at the country level, it is necessary a one-time investment of $57 million. The benefit obtained from this investment would result in a daily increase of 156,000 liters of milk and 26,500 kilograms of beef, equivalent to $22 millions/yr. Therefore, there are significant economic and productive incentives for the private and public sectors to develop and execute a plan of action to recuperate pasturelands in advanced stages of degradation.

Conclusions: Learned lessons

One specie of grass

It is recommended to visit plots with the same grass specie, preferably the most common in the country (ex., Bracharia decumbens), to reduce the bias involved in the evaluation of several species of grass as occurred in this study.

Length of the workshop

It is recommended to extend the duration of the workshop one more day (i.e., 3 days instead of 2) to have enough time to tabulate the survey data from all participants during the second day and to show the results on the third day to capture all the variability from the discussion. The second day could be used to have a field day.

Number of participating producers

In this workshop, 25 small livestock owners participated from 6 regions, averaging 4.2 persons/region. An increase to 5 producers per region is recommended to allow more discussion. This study was carried out with a budget of US$4,000 (excluding salaries). The extension of an additional workshop day with one additional producer per region would increase the cost to approximately US$5,000.

References

Barcellos A 1986 Recuperacão de pastagens degradadas. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (EMBRAPA) y Central de Pesquisa Agropecuaria dos Cerrados (CPAC). 38 p. Planaltina.

CATIE 2002 Multi-stakeholder participatory development of sustainable land use alternatives for degraded pasture lands in Central America. Tropical Agronomical Center for Teaching and Research (CATIE). Turrialba.

Dirección General de Estadística y Censo 1998 Encuesta Agrícola National 1996-97. Secretaría de Industria y Comercio. Tegucigalpa.

FAO 2004 Statistical database. FAOSTAT. Rome.

Grisley W and Kellogg E D 1983 Farmer's subjective probabilities in Northern Thailand: an elicitation analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(1):74.

Holmann F, Argel P, Rivas L, White D, Estrada R D, Burgos C, Perez E, Ramírez G y Medina A 2004 ¿Vale la pena recuperar pasturas degradadas? Una evaluación de los beneficios y costos desde la perspectiva de los productores y extensionistas pecuarios en Honduras. Central International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Documento de Trabajo #196. Cali.

Hoyos P, García O y Torres M I 1995 Manejo y utilización de pasturas en suelos ácidos de Colombia. Fascículo 4 de la Serie "Capacitación en Tecnología de Producción de Pasturas". Central International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Pp. 120.Cali.

IICA 2003 Análisis de la cadena de los productos lácteos en Honduras. Elementos para la concertación de un plan de acción para el mejoramiento de su competitividad. Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA). San José.

Kaimowitz D 1995 Livestock and deforestation in Central America. Working Document #9. IFPRI-IICA. Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Cooperation (IICA). San José.

Oldeman L R 1992 The global extent of soil degradation. In Greenland D J and Szabolcs I (editors). Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. CAB International. United Kindom.

Serrão E A S and Toledo J M 1989 Search for sustainability in Amazonian pastures. In Anderson A (editor). Alternatives to deforestation: Steps towards sustainable utilization of Amazonian forest. Columbia University Press, New York.

Spain J M y Gualdrón R 1991 Degradación y rehabilitación de pasturas. In Lascano C E y Spain J (editors). Establecimiento y renovación de pasturas. VI Reunión del Comité Asesor de la Red International de Evaluación de Pasturas Tropicales (RIEPT). Central International de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 283 pp. Cali.

Stocking M. and Murnaghan N 2001 Handbook for the field assessment of land degradation. Earthscan Publications Ltd. London.

Vera R and Rivas L 1997 Grasslands, cattle, and land use in the neotropics and sub-tropics. International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Cali.