Integrating Crop-Livestock System Practices in Forage and Grain-Based Rotations in Northern Germany: Potentials for Soil Carbon Sequestration

Rios, Josue De Los; Poyda, Arne; Reinsch, Thorsten; Kluß, Christof; Taube, F.; Loges, Ralf

doi:10.3390/agronomy12020338

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although differences were not statistically significant ( p > .05), there was a notable trend of increasing pasture diversity associating with decreasing N 2 O emission intensity in the above study. Also, the long‐term use of grass‐clover in crop rotations was found to accumulate soil carbon substantially (De Los Rios et al, 2022; Reinsch et al, 2018), which significantly reduced the PCF of milk production at Lindhof. The PCF linked to milk from the Lindhof grazing system stands at approximately 0.6 kg CO 2 eq kg −1 ECM, in stark contrast to the more than 1 kg CO 2 eq kg −1 ECM attributed to conventional milk from year‐round indoor systems (Figure 5).…”

Section: Eco‐efficient Pasture‐based Milk Production At Lindhof Exper...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco‐efficiency of leys—The trigger for sustainable integrated crop‐dairy farming systems

Taube,

Nyameasem,

Fenger

et al. 2023

Grass and Forage Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The specialisation of agricultural systems in Western Europe and the intensification of livestock and cropping production are intrinsically linked to substantial resource inputs. This intensified approach frequently leads to nutrient surpluses and biodiversity loss, resulting in detrimental environmental impacts. A transformative agricultural shift is imperative in light of climate and environmental protection objectives. Addressing this need, the Lindhof eco‐efficient pasture‐based milk production initiative, initiated in 2016, is a tangible manifestation of a productive and profitable dairy system integrated within a ley‐based Integrated Crop‐Livestock System (ICLS). Operational at the organically managed Lindhof farm, this approach involves a rotational stocking system of spring‐calving Jersey cows stocked on grass‐clover‐herb leys embedded within a cash crop rotation. The dairy cows benefit from these highly productive swards, rich in nutritive value comparable to concentrate feeding. At the same time, the cultivated crops derive advantages from the legacy effect of leys due to nutrient exchange facilitated by grazing excreta and residual crop matter. Compared to specialised systems, the ley‐based ICLS emerges as an alternative dairy production paradigm that supports many ecosystem services – including minimised nutrient losses, a lower carbon footprint and positive contributions to agro‐biodiversity. These outcomes are realised without compromising overall land‐use efficiency while reducing environmental and social costs of 20–30 Eurocent per kg of milk produced compared to specialised systems. Thus, the ley‐based ICLS conforms to the principles of ecological intensification, enhancing functional diversity within the agricultural landscape. Essentially, the Lindhof initiative represents a holistic and environmentally responsible approach to farming that could contribute to realising the EU Farm to Fork Strategy.

show abstract

Section: Eco‐efficient Pasture‐based Milk Production At Lindhof Exper...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Eco‐efficiency of leys—The trigger for sustainable integrated crop‐dairy farming systems

Taube,

Nyameasem,

Fenger

et al. 2023

Grass and Forage Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the fixed inputs in the grassland systems, the BGB measured after the growing season in the first two experimental years was used. Since AGB was not measured in this period, we assumed these inputs using the AGB measured after the growing season from a similar grassland experiment located at a nearby experimental farm [26,41]. To account for the extra inputs derived from rhizodeposition, an additional 50% of the total BGB produced during and after the growing season was added to the BG C input calculations, as suggested by Pausch and Kuzyakov (2018) [42].…”

Section: Plant Biomass Sampling and C Input Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No-Till Mitigates SOC Losses after Grassland Renovation and Conversion to Silage Maize

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies recommend no-till (NT) to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) in the topsoil (<30 cm) of arable land to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions. Its potential use to mitigate SOC losses during conversion and renovation of grassland ecosystems in the top meter soil is yet to be determined. The SOC dynamics of a 10-year-old grassland converted to silage maize (CM) and renovated and seeded (GR) using either conventional tillage (CT) or NT were compared to an undisturbed grassland control (GC) for 7 years, across three fixed soil depth increments (0–30, 30–60, 60–90 cm). The annual C inputs (Cinput) from crop residues were further analyzed. The systems were either non-fertilized (N0) or fertilized with mineral N (N1) according to a demand of 180 and 380 kg N ha−1 year−1 in the silage maize and grassland systems, respectively. For the 7-year period, the renovated grassland using NT ensured maintenance of the initial SOC in the topsoil, while a conversion toward arable cropping resulted in SOC losses, regardless of the tillage method. The use of NT during conversion significantly reduced these losses from 2.5 Mg ha−1 year−1 to 1.8 Mg ha−1 year−1, for a 28% reduction compared to CT. In the subsoil (30–90 cm), SOC remained stable and was not affected by the cropping systems nor by the tillage method. Reduced annual Cinput was found as the main factor affecting SOC losses after grassland removal, regardless of the tillage method. Our findings highlight the potential of NT to mitigate annual SOC losses after grassland conversion if annual Cinput remains high.

show abstract

“…Gongzhuling, China Maize 6 2.07 [103] Organic fertilizer (2.8 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 C & 47.2 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) vs no fertilizer Gujarat, India Groundnut 16 100 0.63 [104] Organic (1.98 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 C & 15.6 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) plus inorganic fertilizers (15.6 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) vs no fertilizer Gujarat, India Groundnut 16 100 0.43 [104] Inorganic fertilizer (20:40:40 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N: P2O5:K2O) vs no fertilizer Gujarat, India Groundnut 16 100 0.1 [104] Cattle slurry (240 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied Kiel, Germany Continuous silage maize 8 30 0.1 [105] Cattle slurry (160 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied Kiel, Germany Oats-wheat-pulses rotation 8 30 0.3 [105] Cattle slurry (160 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N) vs no input, P, K & S applied Kiel, Germany Maize/oats-wheatley rotation 8 30 0.4 [105] Organic fertilizer (15 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 ) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 100% cereal, SR from barley and rye Berlin, Germany Barley-barley-ryeoats 24 20 0.1 [106] Organic fertilizer (15 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 ) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 75% cereal, SR from barley and rye Berlin, Germany Beets-barley-rye-rye 24 20 nc [106] Organic fertilizer (15 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 ) vs no fertilizer, P, K, rotation with 50% cereal, RR from barley and rye Berlin, Germany Beets-barley-ryesilage maize 24 20 0.03 [106] Straw incorporated (2.25 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 ) vs no straw, ST, 240 kg• ha -1 • yr -1 urea-N & P Quzhou, China Wheat-maize 34 20 1.76 [97] Straw incorporated (4.5 Mg• ha −1 • yr −1 ) vs no straw, ST, 240 kg• ha -1 • yr -1 urea-N & P Quzhou, China Wheat-maize 34 20 2.44 [97] Straw mulch vs no organic matter input, fertilizer rates and forms varied Lopburi, Thailand Maize-mung bean 5 15 0.39 [101] SR vs straw removal, irrigation and inorganic fertilisers (352.5:82.2:146.3 kg• ha −1 • yr −1 N:P:K) Shaanxi, China Wheat-maize 25 20 0.11 [107] Irrigation vs rainfed, no fertilizer Shaanxi, China Wheat-maize 25 20 0.03 [107] Rotation vs continuous Global review 25 (Average) 22 (Average) 0.15 [16] With vs without catch crop Argentina Soybean 8 20 0.09−0.39 [108] Note: NT, no-tillage; ST, standard tillage; RT, rotary tillage; SR, straw return. nc, no substantive change.…”

Section: Madrid Spainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequestering Organic Carbon in Soils Through Land Use Change and Agricultural Practices: A Review

2022

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change vigorously threats human livelihoods, places and biodiversity. To lock atmospheric CO2 up through biological, chemical and physical processes is one of the pathways to mitigate climate change. Agricultural soils have a significant carbon sink capacity. Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) can be accelerated through appropriate changes in land use and agricultural practices. There have been various meta-analyses performed by combining data sets to interpret the influences of some methods on SCS rates or stocks. The objectives of this study were: (1) to update SCS capacity with different landbased techniques based on the latest publications, and (2) to discuss complexity to assess the impacts of the techniques on soil carbon accumulation. This review shows that afforestation and reforestation are slow processes but have great potential for improving SCS. Among agricultural practices, adding organic matter is an efficient way to sequester carbon in soils. Any practice that helps plant increase C fixation can increase soil carbon stock by increasing residues, dead root material and root exudates. Among the improved livestock grazing management practices, reseeding grasses seems to have the highest SCS rate. KEYWORDS agroecosystems, climate change, negative emissions technology, net zero 1 INTRODUCTIONExtreme weather events and global warming are inevitable because of anthropogenic emissions of warming gases (greenhouse gases, GHG) in the future [1] . Over recent decades, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the global air temperature (Fig. 1)have been rising linearly, and the records of the extreme temperature and precipitation intensity kept being rewritten. Negative CO2 emissions (i.e., CO2 removals) to lock CO2 up from the atmosphere through biological, chemical and physical processes are pathways to mitigate the global warming. Land management, soil management, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, CO2 capture from ambient air, enhanced weathering and ocean fertilization are purported to be main potential approaches for CO2 removals [4][5][6] . Shepherd [7] categorized the CO2 removal techniques into three groups according to places where they are applied to (land or ocean) and predominant interventions and assessed the techniques in terms of their effectiveness, timeliness, safety, affordability and reversibility. The first group is to sequester more C into their natural sinks for a long period. The second is to apply enhanced weathering techniques in land and oceans. The third is to apply advanced technologies to capture and store CO2 directly elsewhere. The options also have been reviewed for their costs, potentials, side-effects, and innovation and scaling challenges for their implement [8][9][10] . Hepburn et al. [11] proposed 10 CO2 removal pathways: (1) chemicals from CO2, (2) fuels from CO2, (3) products from microalgae, (4) concrete building materials, (5) CO2-enhanced oil recovery, (6) bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, (7) enhanced weathering, (8) forestry techniques...

show abstract

Integrating Crop-Livestock System Practices in Forage and Grain-Based Rotations in Northern Germany: Potentials for Soil Carbon Sequestration

Cited by 7 publications

References 47 publications

Eco‐efficiency of leys—The trigger for sustainable integrated crop‐dairy farming systems

Eco‐efficiency of leys—The trigger for sustainable integrated crop‐dairy farming systems

No-Till Mitigates SOC Losses after Grassland Renovation and Conversion to Silage Maize

Sequestering Organic Carbon in Soils Through Land Use Change and Agricultural Practices: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About