Evolution in crop–livestock integration systems that improve farm productivity and environmental performance in Australia

Bell, Lindsay W.; Moore, Andrew D.; Kirkegaard, John A.

doi:10.1016/j.eja.2013.04.007

Cited by 190 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrating crop and livestock production and increasing rotational diversity are promising methods of diversifying management practices and improving economic and environmental sustainability (Davis et al, 2012). Although tradeoffs exist when incorporating livestock into cropping systems (Fisher et al, 2012), it has the potential of reducing input costs and risks associated with tillage and herbicide application while increasing economic returns for producers through the added value of animal production and reduced feed costs (Karn et al, 2005;Franzluebbers and Stuedemann, 2007), particularly in water-limited environments (Bell et al, 2014;Johnson et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Sheep Grazing into Cereal‐Based Crop Rotations: Spring Wheat Yields and Weed Communities

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop diversification and integration of livestock into cropping systems may improve the economic and environmental sustainability of agricultural systems. However, few studies have examined the integration of these practices in the semiarid areas of the Northern Great Plains (NGP). A 3-yr experiment was conducted near Bozeman, MT, to compare the effects of crop rotation diversity and weed management practices imposed during fallow periods [sheep (Ovis aries) grazing, reduced tillage, and conventional tillage] on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields and weed pressure. Management treatments were applied to replicated whole plots, within which the split-plots received crop rotation treatments [continuous spring wheat (CSW) and a 3-yr rotation of annual forage, fallow, and spring wheat, where each phase was present in each year]. In the initial 2 yr, the realized rotational treatments were wheat-fallow and CSW. In the final year, wheat was grown following all phases of the diversified rotation. Yields were similar among management treatments within the wheat-fallow and CSW rotations. Weed pressure was generally low but perennial weeds were more abundant in grazing-managed, wheat-fallow systems. The integration of livestock into the annual hay crop-fallow-spring wheat rotation was associated with a nearly 30-fold increase in weed pressure and a yield reduction of 51.2% compared to conventional management. The results suggest that although targeted sheep grazing is a viable alternative to conventional fallow management in CSW and wheat-fallow rotations, successful integration of livestock in diversified cropping systems requires more effective weed management practices. ABStRACtCrop diversi cation and integration of livestock into cropping systems may improve the economic and environmental sustainability of agricultural systems. However, few studies have examined the integration of these practices in the semiarid areas of the Northern Great Plains (NGP). A 3-yr experiment was conducted near Bozeman, MT, to compare the e ects of crop rotation diversity and weed management practices imposed during fallow periods [sheep (Ovis aries) grazing, reduced tillage, and conventional tillage] on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields and weed pressure. Management treatments were applied to replicated whole plots, within which the split-plots received crop rotation treatments [continuous spring wheat (CSW) and a 3-yr rotation of annual forage, fallow, and spring wheat, where each phase was present in each year]. In the initial 2 yr, the realized rotational treatments were wheat-fallow and CSW. In the nal year, wheat was grown following all phases of the diversi ed rotation. Yields were similar among management treatments within the wheat-fallow and CSW rotations. Weed pressure was generally low but perennial weeds were more abundant in grazing-managed, wheat-fallow systems. e integration of livestock into the annual hay crop-fallow-spring wheat rotation was associated with a nearly 30-fold increase in weed pres...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Sheep Grazing into Cereal‐Based Crop Rotations: Spring Wheat Yields and Weed Communities

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…without considering the impacts at farm scale (Russelle et al, 2007;Wilkins, 2008). Second, at farm scale, results are affected by the complex interactions between subsystems and are highly dependent on the context of production (Bell and Moore, 2012;Bell et al, 2014). In this paper, we posit that those contrasted results on the advantages that MC-L systems may take over specialized systems are mainly due to the lack of production scale concerns when comparing farming systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Direct and indirect impacts of crop–livestock organization on mixed crop–livestock systems sustainability: a model-based study

Sneessens

Veysset

Benoît

et al. 2016

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop-livestock production is claimed more sustainable than specialized production systems. However, the presence of controversial studies suggests that there must be conditions of mixing crop and livestock productions to allow for higher sustainable performances. Whereas previous studies focused on the impact of crop-livestock interactions on performances, we posit here that crop-livestock organization is a key determinant of farming system sustainability. Crop-livestock organization refers to the percentage of the agricultural area that is dedicated to each production. Our objective is to investigate if crop-livestock organization has both a direct and an indirect impact on mixed crop-livestock (MC-L) sustainability. In that objective, we build a whole-farm model parametrized on representative French sheep and crop farming systems in plain areas (Vienne, France). This model permits simulating contrasted MC-L systems and their subsequent sustainability through the following indicators of performance: farm income, production, N balance, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (/kg product) and MJ consumption (/kg product). Two MC-L systems were simulated with contrasted crop-livestock organizations (MC 20 -L 80 : 20% of crops; MC 80 -L 20 : 80% of crops). A first scenario -constraining no crop-livestock interactions in both MC-L systems -permits highlighting that crop-livestock organization has a significant direct impact on performances that implies trade-offs between objectives of sustainability. Indeed, the MC 80 -L 20 system is showing higher performances for farm income (+44%), livestock production (+18%) and crop GHG emissions (−14%) whereas the MC 20 -L 80 system has a better N balance (−53%) and a lower livestock MJ consumption (−9%). A second scenario -allowing for crop-livestock interactions in both MC 20 -L 80 and MC 80 -L 20 systemsstated that crop-livestock organization has a significant indirect impact on performances. Indeed, even if crop-livestock interactions permit improving performances, crop-livestock organization influences the capacity of MC-L systems to benefit from crop-livestock interactions. As a consequence, we observed a decreasing performance trade-off between MC-L systems for farm income (−4%) and crop GHG emissions (−10%) whereas the gap increases for nitrogen balance (+23%), livestock production (+6%) -MJ consumption (+16%) -GHG emissions (+5%) and crop MJ consumption (+5%). However, the indirect impact of crop-livestock organization doesn't reverse the trend of trade-offs between objectives of sustainability determined by the direct impact of crop-livestock organization. As a conclusion, crop-livestock organization is a key factor that has to be taken into account when studying the sustainability of mixed crop-livestock systems.Keywords: livestock, organization, integration, farm modeling, sheep ImplicationsBenefits that mixed crop-livestock systems take over specialized systems are controversial. Whereas previous studies mainly focused on the effect of crop-livestock interactions, we high...

show abstract

“…Dual-purpose crops provide a highly digestible forage source during periods when growth rates of pasture forage is low, and the crops can recover to achieve similar grain yields to ungrazed crops (Kirkegaard et al 2008;Dove and McMullen 2009). Together this can increase the net economic gains from these crops by 25-75% (Bell et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of dual-purpose crops in the high rainfall mixed farming areas of south-eastern Australia, where purpose-bred dual-purpose cereal varieties have been available for decades (Bell et al 2014;Dove and Kirkegaard 2014) has prompted recent investigations of their potential in other mixed farming zones. An obvious first target was the estimated 6M ha of arable land in other high rainfall zones of Australia (Zhang et al 2006), where livestock enterprises comprise a significant portion of the farm enterprise, and where cropping has recently expanded (Riffkin et al 2012).…”

Section: Exploring the Wider Potential Of Dual-purpose Crops In New Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-purpose cropping – capitalising on potential grain crop grazing to enhance mixed-farming profitability

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution in crop–livestock integration systems that improve farm productivity and environmental performance in Australia

Cited by 190 publications

References 68 publications

Integrating Sheep Grazing into Cereal‐Based Crop Rotations: Spring Wheat Yields and Weed Communities

Integrating Sheep Grazing into Cereal‐Based Crop Rotations: Spring Wheat Yields and Weed Communities

Direct and indirect impacts of crop–livestock organization on mixed crop–livestock systems sustainability: a model-based study

Dual-purpose cropping – capitalising on potential grain crop grazing to enhance mixed-farming profitability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About