IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i23p10160-d1525742.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perennial Forage Systems Enhance Ecosystem Quality Variables Compared with Annual Forage Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ogechukwu Igboke

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

  • Elisandra S. O. Bortolon

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

  • Amanda J. Ashworth

    (Poultry Production and Product Safety Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

  • Joel Tallaksen

    (West Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN 56267, USA)

  • Valentin D. Picasso

    (Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA)

  • Marisol T. Berti

    (Department of Plant Sciences, Loftsgard Hall, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108, USA)

Abstract

There is an intense argument about the environmental impact of annual vs. perennial forage production systems. In this study, a systematic review was employed to obtain 47 empirical studies from 13 published papers between the years 2017–2023 to help clarify the issue. The objective of this study was to determine how perennial and annual forage (business-as-usual, BAU) production systems affect dry matter yield (DM) and energy of production including specific environmental impact variables. Impact variables were classified into three main groups: human health, ecosystem quality, and resource consumption. Net energy of lactation (NEL) was considered as a functional unit. Overall, perennial forage production systems varied less in DM yield and energy production than annual monocrop systems, indicating stability in perennial production. There was no statistically significant difference in human health and resource consumption variables between perennial and annual forage production systems, except for ozone layer depletion potential. However, perennial forage systems significantly lowered variables within the ecosystem quality category. Ecotoxicity potential decreased by two and 18 times compared with BAU—control (only annual monoculture forages), and BAU—improved (any annual cropping system other than BAU—control), respectively. Perennial forage systems showed a significant effect size of −8.16, which was slightly less than the effect size of the BAU—improved system but two times less than BAU—control in terms of terrestrial acidification potential. While BAU—control showed an insignificant effect size in relation to eutrophication potential (EUP), perennial forage systems reduced EUP by approximately five and two times compared with BAU—control and BAU—improved, respectively. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of promoting perennial forage production system to foster resilience and stability in DM yield and energy production, with improvements in environmental human health (ozone layer depletion potential) and ecosystem quality variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Ogechukwu Igboke & Elisandra S. O. Bortolon & Amanda J. Ashworth & Joel Tallaksen & Valentin D. Picasso & Marisol T. Berti, 2024. "Perennial Forage Systems Enhance Ecosystem Quality Variables Compared with Annual Forage Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10160-:d:1525742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10160/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10160/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martínez-Blanco, Julia & Muñoz, Pere & Antón, Assumpció & Rieradevall, Joan, 2009. "Life cycle assessment of the use of compost from municipal organic waste for fertilization of tomato crops," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 340-351.
    2. González-García, Sara & Baucells, Francesc & Feijoo, Gumersindo & Moreira, Maria Teresa, 2016. "Environmental performance of sorghum, barley and oat silage production for livestock feed using life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 28-41.
    3. Stanley, Paige L. & Rowntree, Jason E. & Beede, David K. & DeLonge, Marcia S. & Hamm, Michael W., 2018. "Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 249-258.
    4. Laurent, A. & Pelzer, E. & Loyce, C. & Makowski, D., 2015. "Ranking yields of energy crops: A meta-analysis using direct and indirect comparisons," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 41-50.
    5. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Weersink, Alfons & Janovicek, Ken & Deen, Bill, 2006. "Cost Efficient Tillage and Rotation Options for Mitigating GHG Emissions from Agriculture in Eastern Canada," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25485, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Joost F Wolfswinkel & Elfi Furtmueller & Celeste P M Wilderom, 2013. "Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 45-55, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Xing & Lehtonen, Heikki & Purola, Tuomo & Pavlova, Yulia & Rötter, Reimund & Palosuo, Taru, 2016. "Dynamic economic modelling of crop rotations with farm management practices under future pest pressure," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 65-76.
    2. Myriam Schaschek & Fabian Gwinner & Nicolas Neis & Christoph Tomitza & Christian Zeiß & Axel Winkelmann, 2024. "Managing next generation BP-x initiatives," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 457-500, September.
    3. McGee, M. & Lenehan, C. & Crosson, P. & O'Riordan, E.G. & Kelly, A.K. & Moran, L. & Moloney, A.P., 2022. "Performance, meat quality, profitability, and greenhouse gas emissions of suckler bulls from pasture-based compared to an indoor high-concentrate weanling-to-beef finishing system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Komakech, A.J. & Sundberg, C. & Jönsson, H. & Vinnerås, B., 2015. "Life cycle assessment of biodegradable waste treatment systems for sub-Saharan African cities," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-110.
    5. Monia El Akkari & Nosra Ben Fradj & Benoit Gabrielle & Sylvestre Njakou Djomo, 2023. "Spatially-explicit environmental assessment of bioethanol from miscanthus and switchgrass in France [Évaluation environnementale spatialement explicite du bioéthanol produit à partir de miscanthus ," Post-Print hal-04369771, HAL.
    6. Thorn, Alexandra M. & Baker, Michael J. & Peters, Christian J., 2021. "Estimating biological capacity for grass-finished ruminant meat production in New England and New York," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    7. Fabiellen C. Pereira & Stuart Charters & Carol M. S. Smith & Thomas M. R. Maxwell & Pablo Gregorini, 2023. "A Geospatial Modelling Approach to Assess the Capability of High-Country Stations in Delivering Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Tenanoia Simona & Tauisi Taupo & Pedro Antunes, 2023. "A Scoping Review on Agency Collaboration in Emergency Management Based on the 3C Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 291-302, February.
    9. Giuseppe Pulighe & Guido Bonati & Stefano Fabiani & Tommaso Barsali & Flavio Lupia & Silvia Vanino & Pasquale Nino & Pasquale Arca & Pier Paolo Roggero, 2016. "Assessment of the Agronomic Feasibility of Bioenergy Crop Cultivation on Marginal and Polluted Land: A GIS-Based Suitability Study from the Sulcis Area, Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, October.
    10. Luciano Rodrigues Viana & Pierre-Luc Dessureault & Charles Marty & Jean-François Boucher & Maxime C. Paré, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Oat Flake Production with Two End-of-Life Options for Agro-Industrial Residue Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Kwiatkowski, Jacek & Graban, Łukasz & Stolarski, Mariusz J., 2023. "The energy efficiency of Virginia fanpetals biomass production for solid biofuel," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    12. Clifford, McKenna E. & McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Hodbod, Jennifer & Swanson, Janice C., 2020. "Adaptive Multi-Paddock Grazing: Cattle Producer Survey Results," Staff Paper Series 307453, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    13. Bardsley, Nicholas, 2021. "Recent Advances in Biofarming Show Potential for Rapid Soil Restoration, with Carbon, Health and Livelihoods Benefits," MPRA Paper 121184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Vogel, Everton & Beber, Caetano Luiz, 2021. "Sustainable Intensification Strategies for GHG Mitigation Among Heterogeneous Dairy Farms in Paraná, Brazil," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315219, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Andreas Meyer-Aurich & Jørgen Olesen & Annette Prochnow & Reiner Brunsch, 2013. "Greenhouse gas mitigation with scarce land: The potential contribution of increased nitrogen input," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(7), pages 921-932, October.
    16. Yang Lu & Peixin Zuo & José C. Alves & Jinliang Wang, 2023. "Unlocking the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and international performance: A systematic review," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 464-504, December.
    17. Colón, Joan & Martínez-Blanco, Julia & Gabarrell, Xavier & Artola, Adriana & Sánchez, Antoni & Rieradevall, Joan & Font, Xavier, 2010. "Environmental assessment of home composting," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(11), pages 893-904.
    18. Subash Dahal & Dorcas Franklin & Anish Subedi & Miguel Cabrera & Dennis Hancock & Kishan Mahmud & Laura Ney & Cheolwoo Park & Deepak Mishra, 2020. "Strategic Grazing in Beef-Pastures for Improved Soil Health and Reduced Runoff-Nitrate-A Step towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Desveaud, Kathleen & Mandler, Timo & Eisend, Martin, 2024. "A meta-model of customer brand loyalty and its antecedents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Matthias Fabian Gregersen Trischler & Jason Li-Ying, 2023. "Digital business model innovation: toward construct clarity and future research directions," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 3-32, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10160-:d:1525742. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.