Challenges and opportunities in the energy transition of agribusiness: A deep dive into the rebound effect in Latin America

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2025.100225

Abstract

Abstract:

Growing climate change concerns have intensified the focus on agribusiness sustainability, driving an urgent energy transition to improve production efficiency and mitigate environmental harm. The complex interplay between energy efficiency and energy consumption highlights the essential role of strategic energy policies in ensuring sustainable development. This study used the Double-Log regression model with bootstrap resampling to examine the rebound effect in the energy transition of agribusiness focusing on five Latin American countries including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, and Mexico based on the agricultural sector data during 2010-2022. The findings revealed that the rebound effect significantly influences energy transition, with varying degrees of impact across agricultural sectors. This study identified partial rebound effect across all five countries, with elasticity coefficient varying from 9.63% (Colombia’s coffee sector) to 89.12% (Brazil’s livestock sector). In Brazil’s sugarcane sector, non-renewable energy, agricultural employment, and irrigation efficiency were identified as key factors influencing energy consumption, while in livestock sector, energy consumption was affected by CH₄ emissions, income and well-being of farmers, water consumption, and water conservation practices. In Mexico’s livestock sector, CH₄ emissions, non-renewable energy, and water conservation practices were the key factors affecting energy consumption. In Argentina’s sugarcane sector, pesticides, NO₂ emissions, renewable energy, and agricultural employment were the key factors affecting energy consumption, while renewable energy, income and well-being of farmers, and water consumption were the key factors affecting energy consumption in livestock sector. In Uruguay’s livestock sector, non-renewable energy, income and well-being of farmers, and irrigation efficiency were the key factors affecting energy consumption. In Colombia’ coffee sector, NO₂ emissions and irrigation efficiency were identified as key factors influencing energy consumption. Finally, this study reinforces the importance of aligning energy transition with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ensuring that energy efficiency gains do not inadvertently increase energy consumption or environmental degradation.

Key words: Energy efficiency, Energy consumption, Greenhouse gas emissions, Rebound effect, Double-Log regression model, Latin America

Fábio DE OLIVEIRA NEVES, Eduardo Gomes SALGADO, Mateus CURY, Jean Marcel Sousa LIRA, Breno Régis SANTOS. Challenges and opportunities in the energy transition of agribusiness: A deep dive into the rebound effect in Latin America[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2025, 6(3): 100225.

Figures/Tables 15

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

References 89

[1]	Agri-Food and Fisheries Information Service, 2024. Historical Record of Sowing and Harvest Progress. [2024-09-30].https://www.gob.mx/siap/acciones-y-programas/produccion-agricola-33119.
[2]	Amin, S., Mehmood, W., Sharif, A., 2022. Blessing or curse: The role of diversity matters in stimulating or relegating environmental sustainability—A global perspective via renewable and non-renewable energy. Renew. Energy. 189, 927-937.
[3]	Arrieta, E.M., Cabrol, D.A., Cuchietti, A., et al., 2020. Biomass consumption and environmental footprints of beef cattle production in Argentina. Agric. Syst. 185, 102944, doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102944.
[4]	Balcombe, P., Speirs, J.F., Brandon, N.P., et al., 2018. Methane emissions: Choosing the right climate metric and time horizon. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts. 20(10), 1323-1339.
[5]	Bansal, P., Dua, R., 2022. Fuel consumption elasticities, rebound effect and feebate effectiveness in the Indian and Chinese new car markets. Energy Econ. 113, 106192, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106192.
[6]	Bentzen, J., 2004. Estimating the rebound effect in US manufacturing energy consumption. Energy Econ. 26(1), 123-134.
[7]	Birol, F., Keppler, J.H., 2000. Prices, technology development and the rebound effect. Energy Policy. 28(6-7), 457-469.
[8]	Bonilla, D., Arias Soberon, H., Galarza, O.U., 2022. Electric vehicle deployment & fossil fuel tax revenue in Mexico to 2050. Energy Policy. 171, 113276, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113276.
[9]	Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, 2024. Dataset. [2024-09-20].https://Dados.Gov.Br/Dados/Organizacoes/Visualizar/Instituto-Brasileiro-de-Geografia-e-Estatistica-Ibge.
[10]	Canabarro, N.I., Silva-Ortiz, P., Nogueira, L.A.H., et al., 2023. Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 171, 113019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.113019.
[11]	Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., 2022. Nitrogen and the future of agriculture: 20 years on. Ambio. 51(1), 17-24.
[12]	Castro, C.G., Trevisan, A.H., Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., 2022. The rebound effect of circular economy: Definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda. J. Clean Prod. 345, 131136, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136.
[13]	Cherubin, M.R., Carvalho, J.L.N., Cerri, C.E.P., et al., 2021. Land use and management effects on sustainable sugarcane-derived bioenergy. Land. 10(1), 1-24.
[14]	Colmenares, G., Löschel, A., Madlener, R., 2019. The rebound effect representation in climate and energy models. Environ. Res. Lett. 15(12), 123010, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc214.
[15]	Danelon, A.F., Spolador, H.F.S., Bergtold, J.S., 2023. The role of productivity and efficiency gains in the sugar-ethanol industry to reduce land expansion for sugarcane fields in Brazil. Energy Policy. 172, 113327, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113327.
[16]	de Mello, K., Taniwaki, R.H., Paula, F.R., et al., 2020. Multiscale land use impacts on water quality: Assessment, planning, and future perspectives in Brazil. J. Environ. Manage. 270, 110879, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110879.
[17]	de Oliveira Neves, F., Salgado, E.G., Lira, J.M.S., 2024. Energetic sustainability in the Amazon region: Exploring impacts, environmental solutions, and rebound effect analysis. Environ. Dev. 51, 101043, doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101043.
[18]	D’Haultfoeuille, X., Gaillac, C., Maurel, A., 2021. Rationalizing rational expectations: Characterizations and tests. Quant. Econ. 12(3), 817-842.
[19]	Dos Santos, J.S., Miziara, F., Fernandes, H., et al., 2021. Technification in dairy farms may reconcile habitat conservation in a Brazilian savanna region. Sustainability. 13(10), 5606, doi: 10.3390/su13105606.
[20]	Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2024. Data and Statistics. [2024-09-21]. https://www.cepal.org/en.
[21]	Fávero, L.P.L., Belfiore, P.P., Silva, F.L., et al., 2009. Data Analysis:Multivariate Modeling for Decision-Making. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 638-650.
[22]	Feng, Y.C., Zhang, J., Geng, Y., et al., 2023. Explaining and modeling the reduction effect of low-carbon energy transition on energy intensity: Empirical evidence from global data. Energy. 281, 128276, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.128276.
[23]	Font Vivanco, D., Nechifor, V., Freire-González, J., et al., 2021. Economy-wide rebound makes UK’s electric car subsidy fall short of expectations. Appl. Energy. 297, 117138, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117138.
[24]	Freire-González, J., 2021. Governing Jevons’ Paradox: Policies and systemic alternatives to avoid the rebound effect. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72, 101893, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101893.
[25]	Frizzone, J.A., Lima, S.C.R.V., Lacerda, C.F., et al., 2021. Socio-economic indexes for water use in irrigation in a representative basin of the tropical semiarid region. Water. 13(19), 1-20.
[26]	Gallo Corredor, J.A., Vargas González, G.L., Velasco Granados, M., et al., 2021. Use of the gray water footprint as an indicator of contamination caused by artisanal mining in Colombia. Resour. Policy. 73, 102197, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102197.
[27]	García, V.R., Gaspart, F., Kastner, T., et al., 2020. Agricultural intensification and land use change: Assessing country-level induced intensification, land sparing and rebound effect. Environ. Res. Lett. 15(8), 085007, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8b14.
[28]	Garrett, R.D., Koh, I., Lambin, E.F., et al., 2018. Intensification in agriculture-forest frontiers: Land use responses to development and conservation policies in Brazil. Glob. Environ. Change. 53, 233-243.
[29]	Ghaedi, M., Foukolaei, P.Z., Alizadeh Asari, F., et al., 2024. Pricing electricity from blue hydrogen to mitigate the energy rebound effect: A case study in agriculture and livestock. Hydrog. Energy. 84, 993-1003.
[30]	Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., et al., 2019. The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strateg. Rev. 24, 38-50. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006
[31]	Gillingham, K., Rapson, D., Wagner, G., 2014. The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Rev. Env. Econ. Policy. 10(1), doi: 10.1093/reep/rev017.
[32]	Gonçalves, F., Perna, R., Lopes, E., et al., 2021. Strategies to improve the environmental efficiency and the profitability of sugarcane mills. Biomass Bioenerg. 148, 106052, doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106052.
[33]	González-Quintero, R., Bolívar-Vergara, D.M., Chirinda, N., et al., 2021. Environmental impact of primary beef production chain in Colombia: Carbon footprint, non-renewable energy and land use using Life Cycle Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145573, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145573.
[34]	Hagen, I., Huggel, C., Ramajo, L., et al., 2022. Climate change-related risks and adaptation potential in Central and South America during the 21^st century. Res. Lett. 17(3), 033002, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac5271.
[35]	Harichandan, S., Kar, S.K., Bansal, R., et al., 2022. Energy transition research: A bibliometric mapping of current findings and direction for future research. Cleaner Production Letter. 3, 100026, doi: 10.1016/j.clpl.2022.100026.
[36]	Herrera, J.M., Rubio, G., Häner, L.L., et al., 2016. Emerging and established technologies to increase nitrogen use efficiency of cereals. Agronomy. 6(2), 11-18.
[37]	Huntzinger, D.N., Eatmon, T.D., 2009. A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: Comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J. Clean Prod. 17(7), 668-675.
[38]	IPCC International, Panel on Climate Change, 2023. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. In:Sixth Assessment Report during the Panel’s 58^th Session. Interlaken, Switzerland.
[39]	Jevons, W.S., 1865. On the variation of prices and the value of the currency since 1782. Journal of the Statistical Society of London. 28(2), 294-320+1-4.
[40]	Jin, T., Kim, J., 2019. A new approach for assessing the macroeconomic growth energy rebound effect. Appl. Energy. 239, 192-200.
[41]	Karmakar, B., Halder, G., 2019. Progress and future of biodiesel synthesis: Advancements in oil extraction and conversion technologies. Energy Conv. Manag. 182, 307-339.
[42]	Khazzoom, J.D., 1980. Economic implications of mandated efficiency standards for household appliances. The Energy Journal. 1(4), 21-40.
[43]	Lange, S., Berner, A., 2022. The growth rebound effect: A theoretical-empirical investigation into the relation between rebound effects and economic growth. J. Clean Prod. 371, 133158, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133158.
[44]	Li, G.H., Niu, M.M., Xiao, J., et al., 2023. The rebound effect of decarbonization in China’s power sector under the carbon trading scheme. Energy Policy. 177, 113543, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113543.
[45]	Lin, B., Abudu, H., 2020. Can energy conservation and substitution mitigate CO₂ emissions in electricity generation? Evidence from Middle East and North Africa. J. Environ. Manage. 275, 111222, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111222.
[46]	Lin, B.Q., Li, J.L., 2014. The rebound effect for heavy industry: Empirical evidence from China. Energy Policy. 74, 589-599.
[47]	Lin, B.Q., Xie, X., 2015. Factor substitution and rebound effect in China’s food industry. Energy Conv. Manag. 105, 20-29.
[48]	Liu, H.Y., Alharthi, M., Atil, A., et al., 2022. A non-linear analysis of the impacts of natural resources and education on environmental quality: Green energy and its role in the future. Resour. Policy. 79, 102940, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102940.
[49]	Liu, S., Proudman, J., Mitloehner, F.M., 2021. Rethinking methane from animal agriculture. CABI Agriculture Biosci. 2(1), 1-13.
[50]	Mahlknecht, J., González-Bravo, R., Loge, F.J., 2020. Water-energy-food security: A nexus perspective of the current situation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Energy. 194, 1-17.
[51]	Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries, 2024. Open Data. [2024-09-20].https://datos.magyp.gob.ar/sataset.
[52]	Mujtaba, A., Jena, P.K., Bekun, F.V., et al., 2022. Symmetric and asymmetric impact of economic growth, capital formation, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on environment in OECD countries. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 160, 112300, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112300.
[53]	Naeem, K., Zghibi, A., Elomri, A., et al., 2023. A literature review on system dynamics modeling for sustainable management of water supply and demand. Sustainability. 15(8), 1-24.
[54]	National Federation of Coffee Growers, 2024. Indicators. [2024-09-25].https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/federation/about-us/?lang=en.
[55]	National Meat Institute of Uruguay, 2024. Data. [2024-09-22].https://www.inac.uy/.
[56]	National Supply Company, 2024. Publications. [2024-09-20].https://www.conab.gov.br/institucional/publicacoes.
[57]	Nepstad, L.S., Gerber, J.S., Hill, J.D., et al., 2019. Pathways for recent Cerrado soybean expansion: Extending the soy moratorium and implementing integrated crop livestock systems with soybeans. Environ. Res. Lett. 14(4), 044029, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aafb85.
[58]	Newell, P., Simms, A., 2021. How did we do that? Histories and political economies of rapid and just transitions. New Polit. Econ. 26(6), 907-922.
[59]	Nikas, A., Koasidis, K., Köberle, A.C., et al., 2022. A comparative study of biodiesel in Brazil and Argentina: An integrated systems of innovation perspective. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 156, 112022, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.112022.
[60]	Omondi, C., Njoka, F., Musonye, F., 2023. An economy-wide rebound effect analysis of Kenya’s energy efficiency initiatives. J. Clean Prod. 385, 135730, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135730.
[61]	Phélinas, P., Choumert, J., 2017. Is GM soybean cultivation in Argentina sustainable? World Dev. 99, 452-462.
[62]	Ramirez-Contreras, N.E., Faaij, A.P.C., 2018. A review of key international biomass and bioenergy sustainability frameworks and certification systems and their application and implications in Colombia. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 96, 460-478.
[63]	Ran, Y., Lannerstad, M., Herrero, M., et al., 2016. Assessing water resource use in livestock production: A review of methods. Livest. Sci. 187, 68-79.
[64]	Rauter, A.R.K.K., 2022. Elite energy transitions: Leaders and experts promoting renewable energy futures in Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 88, 102509, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102509.
[65]	Saunders, H., 2013. Is what we think of as “rebound” really just income effects in disguise? Energy Policy. 57, 308-317.
[66]	Saunders, H.D., 2008. Fuel conserving (and using) production functions. Energy Econ. 30(5), 2184-2235.
[67]	Schwerhoff, G., Edenhofer, O., Fleurbaey, M., et al., 2022. Equity and Efficiency Effects of Land Value Taxation. [2024-09-10].https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/12/17/Equity-and-Efficiency-Effects-of-Land-Value-Taxation-527079.
[68]	Solaymani, S., 2021. A review on energy and renewable energy policies in Iran. Sustainability. 13(13), 7328, doi: 10.3390/su13137328.
[69]	Sorrell, S., 2005. The rebound effect:Definition and estimation.In: Evans, J., Hunt, L.C., (eds.). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 199-233.
[70]	Sorrell, S., Gatersleben, B., Druckman, A., 2020. The limits of energy sufficiency: A review of the evidence for rebound effects and negative spillovers from behavioural change. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64, 101439, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101439.
[71]	Sovacool, B.K., 2021. Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of climate change mitigation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 7, 101916, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.101916.
[72]	Steren, A., Rubin, O.D., Rosenzweig, S., 2022. Energy-efficiency policies targeting consumers may not save energy in the long run: A rebound effect that cannot be ignored. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 90, 102600, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102600.
[73]	Stevens, N., Bond, W., Feurdean, A., et al., 2022. Grassy ecosystems in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 261-289.
[74]	Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Weber, E.U., et al., 2014. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Change. 29, 127-138.
[75]	Van Vuuren, D.P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D.E.H.J., et al., 2018. Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8(5), 391-397.
[76]	Wang, Y., Zhao, M., Chen, W., 2018. Spatial effect of factors affecting household CO₂ emissions at the provincial level in China: A geographically weighted regression model. Carbon Manag. 9(2), 187-200.
[77]	World, Bank, 2024a. Indicators. [2024-09-20].https://data.worldbank.org/indicator?tab=all.
[78]	World, Bank, 2024b. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Agriculture. [2024-09-20].https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.CO2.AG.MT.CE.AR5?View=chart.
[79]	World, Bank, 2024c. Methane Emissions from Agriculture. [2024-09-20].https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.CH4.AG.MT.CE.AR5?View=chart.
[80]	World, Bank, 2024d. Fertilizer Comsuption. [2024-09-20]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS?View=chart.
[81]	World, Bank, 2024e. Renewable Energy Comsuption. [2024-09-20]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS?View=chart.
[82]	World, Bank, 2024f. Agricultural Irrigated Land. [2024-09-20]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.IRIG.AG.ZS?View=chart.
[83]	World, Bank, 2024g. Fossil Fuel Energy Comsuption. [2024-09-20]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?View=chart.
[84]	World, Bank, 2024h. Annual Freshwater Withdrawals, Agriculture. [2024-09-20].https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.FWAG.ZS?View=chart.
[85]	World, Bank, 2024i. Renewable Internal Freshwater Resources, Total. [2024-09-20].https://Data.Worldbank.Org/Indicator/ER.H2O.INTR.K3?View=chart.
[86]	World, Bank, 2024j. Adjusted Net National Income per Capita. [2024-09-20]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.ADJ.NNTY.PC.CD?View=chart.
[87]	World, Bank, 2024k. Nitrous Oxide from Emissions Agriculture. [2024-09-20].https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.N2O.AG.MT.CE.AR5?View=chart.
[88]	Zabaloy, M.F., Viego, V., 2022. Household electricity demand in Latin America and the Caribbean: A meta-analysis of price elasticity. Util. Policy. 75, 101334, doi: 0.1016/j.jup.2021.101334.
[89]	Zhang, Z., Hu, G.W., Mu, X.Z., et al., 2022. From low carbon to carbon neutrality: A bibliometric analysis of the status, evolution and development trend. J. Environ. Manage. 322, 116087, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116087.

Independent variable	Unit	Description	Period	Database
CO₂ emissions (CO₂)	10³ kg/a	Analysis of CO₂ emissions from agribusiness	2010-2022	World Bank (2024a)
CH₄ emissions (CH₄)	10³ kg/a	Assessing the impact of livestock waste management	2010-2022	World Bank (2024b)
NO₂ emissions (NO₂)	10³ kg/a	Understanding the impact of agricultural practices on greenhouse gas emissions	2010-2022	World Bank (2024c)
Non-renewable energy (EnR)	kJ/(10⁶ kW•h)	Understanding the impact of traditional energy on the sector	2010-2022	World Bank (2024d)
Renewable energy (ER)	kJ/(10⁶ kW•h)	Understanding the progress of the transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy	2010-2022	World Bank (2024e)
Pesticides (PS)	kg/hm²	Understanding how improving energy efficiency reduces the application of these chemical products and its impact on the environment	2010-2022	World Bank (2024f)
Water consumption (WV)	m³	Identification of crops with high water consumption	2010-2022	World Bank (2024g)
Water conservation practices (WC)	%	Understanding how energy transition promotes more efficient water management measures	2010-2022	World Bank (2024h)
Income and well-being of farmers (IWF)	USD or %	Evaluating the impact of energy transition of agribusiness on the income and well-being of farmers	2010-2022	World Bank (2024i)
Agricultural employment (EA)	Number of workers or %	Evaluating the impact of energy transition of agribusiness on rural employment	2010-2022	World Bank (2024j)
Irrigation efficiency (IF)	L/hm² or %	Evaluating the effect of water resource utilization in the irrigation system	2010-2022	World Bank (2024k)

Type	Rebound effect value	Implication
Backfire effect	>100.00%	Unintended consequences that occur when the initial action leads to an effect contrary to expectations
Total rebound effect	100.00%	Full rebound effect after an intervention
Partial rebound effect	0.00%-99.00%	Partial recovery effect
Zero rebound effect	0.00%	Absence of recovery effect
Super conservation effect	<0.00%	Exaggerated reaction that amplifies the initial effect

Country	Sector	t-statistic value	P-value
Brazil	Sugarcane	32.25	<0.0001
Brazil	Livestock	45.62	<0.0001
Mexico	Livestock	23.78	<0.0001
Argentina	Soybean	12.84	<0.0001
Argentina	Livestock	29.83	<0.0001
Colombia	Coffee	24.84	<0.0001
Uruguay	Livestock	67.84	<0.0001

Country	Sector	F-value	χ²	AIC	VIF	R²
Brazil	Sugarcane	3.23	89.43	231.23	5.78	0.97
Brazil	Livestock	4.92	96.24	134.65	1.83	0.95
Mexico	Livestock	3.92	82.92	112.72	10.23	0.61
Argentina	Soybean	5.23	70.23	149.82	3.92	0.90
Argentina	Livestock	9.46	81.98	201.52	6.57	0.86
Colombia	Coffee	7.39	87.94	169.49	7.34	0.77
Uruguay	Livestock	7.48	76.94	201.03	5.67	0.89

Country	Sector	Levene test	Durbin-Watson test	Shapiro-Wilk test	Anderson-Darling test	Dixon test
Brazil	Sugarcane	20.12	30.19	22.14	43.02	12.83
Brazil	Livestock	9.32	25.81	72.91	56.13	34.20
Mexico	Livestock	54.23	53.90	16.42	9.23	42.10
Argentina	Soybean	62.45	24.83	33.68	12.90	43.87
Argentina	Livestock	12.32	12.93	9.54	32.01	28.35
Colombia	Coffee	37.21	32.84	11.72	23.45	6.12
Uruguay	Livestock	8.29	77.01	13.63	76.56	31.63