How Much Land in Michigan Devoted to Beef Cattle Production
Introduction
Livestock are often considered agriculture's key greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, contributing more than one-third of agronomical emissions (EPA, 2019). Typically, livestock production in the United States is highly specialized and intensified and is often cited as having both lower GHG [on a per carcass weight (CW) ground] and land-use footprints than pasture-based livestock systems. Alternatively, pasture-based systems often have less GHG intensity from a land use basis (Cardoso et al., 2016). Even so, current studies neither robustly consider complication in diversified pasture-based livestock systems, nor consider the role of soil carbon (C) in GHG flux as well as land-use tradeoffs. This study aimed to contribute to this gap, in part, by quantifying GHG emissions, soil C sequestration, soil health, and country footprint of a farm using a diversified, multispecies pasture rotation (MSPR) in Dirt County, Georgia, USA. We and then compared emissions and country utilize to conventional, commodity (COM) production systems for beef, pork, and poultry.
Diversified farms supply 60 and 75% of the earth'due south meat and dairy, respectively (Herrero et al., 2010; FAO, 2014). Expanding the use of diversified farming methods for animal production (including integrated crop-livestock systems, carefully managed grazing, and MSPRs) tin can lead to improved environmental outcomes and beneficial ecosystem services (e.g., wild fauna and pollinator habitat, improved food cycling) in addition to nutrient production (Russelle et al., 2007; Kremen et al., 2012; Rivera-Ferre et al., 2016; Kremen and Merenlender, 2018; Kumar et al., 2019). Importantly, MSPRs take advantage of an "agromutualism" that builds symbiotic relationships between enterprises that lead to ecological and economical benefits. These product systems differ from industrial methods in focusing on biodiversity and mimicking natural ecological mechanisms (e.g., enhancing soil C sequestration through rotational grazing on rangelands and improving water and nutrient cycling through improved soil health), rather than specialization and intensification, albeit with considerably less overall production. However, few studies accept explored such diversified livestock production systems in the U.s., instead focusing mostly on very extensively (e.grand., pastoralism) and intensively (e.g., feedlot) managed systems.
Livestock GHG footprints are calculated using life cycle assessment (LCA), which is an bookkeeping arroyo that reports emissions resulting from all inputs and outputs of a production organisation on a per kg of CW of meat produced (kg COii-e kg CW−1). LCA methodologies are often based on generally accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Modify (IPCC) calculations to estimate arrangement GHG fluxes for processes such as enteric fermentation (enteric CH4), manure management, and feed production. These calculations rely on metadata accumulated over fourth dimension and often from scientific literature. While these accounting principles and approaches are useful, supported past scientific literature, and requite broad-based estimations on the impact of a system, they oft practice not business relationship for the complication of on-farm management and commonly trade-off regional specificity for global or national generalizations. Further, very complex diversified livestock systems are scientifically underrepresented in the literature compared to simplified creature production systems, and scientific studies of extensive systems often reduce complication to regimented management practices designed to reduce the very complexity that farmers and ranchers face daily (Teague et al., 2013).
Recent studies show that livestock-induced soil C changes tin can have large impacts on the GHG balance of these product systems (Beauchemin et al., 2011; Teague et al., 2016; Stanley et al., 2018). Grazing lands are one of the well-nigh significant reservoirs of soil organic carbon (SOC) (Conant et al., 2017), containing more than than 30% of total global SOC (Follett et al., 2000; Lal, 2002; Schuman et al., 2002; Derner and Schuman, 2007). Livestock are the primary users of this extensive land base and are an important direction tool for mediating increased soil C sequestration (Liebig et al., 2010; Teague et al., 2011; McSherry and Ritchie, 2013; Machmuller et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Griscom et al., 2017). Although our knowledge of management impacts on soil C sequestration is expanding, LCAs consistently omit it from GHG assay (Rotz et al., 2019). Soil C has been historically excluded from LCA for a number of reasons, including lack of data on soil C sequestration, to provide conservative GHG estimates (Rotz et al., 2019), and an assumption that soils, without boosted carbon inputs, are in long-term equilibrium. However, globally grass and cropland soils are highly degraded and thus take a long-term sequestration potential (Cotrufo et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Lavallee et al., 2020). Some studies have shown that when including soil C changes to LCA parameters, the overall CO2-e can decrease considerably (Pelletier et al., 2010b; Stanley et al., 2018). Thus, changes in soil C could possibly exist the greatest opportunity for reducing beef'south carbon footprint.
In addition to GHG emissions and soil C sequestration, land use is a key evaluation metric of livestock systems. A growing global population and per-capita meat demand take increased the impetus for more efficient, and thus college intensity, meat production. Notwithstanding, in that location are tradeoffs to extensive vs. intensive livestock production systems. For instance, although overall land utilise is ofttimes lower in intensive systems, they often use a higher percentage of arable cropland suitable for other uses than extensive systems, which rely primarily on marginal lands. The MSPR examined in this study is an interesting instance that is neither all-encompassing nor intensive. Rather, it is a stacked-enterprise organisation in which animal stock density and rotational management are characteristically "intensive," merely taking place on an "extensive," low-input, pasture-based mural. Nosotros examined the total land-use tradeoffs for this system compared to conventional production systems for each animal species.
We promise to, in part, fill up these gaps in the literature through this report in 2 means: (i) past conducting a comparative assay of an MSPR and a conventional U.s. animal production system, thereby addressing the extensive–intensive dichotomy, and (2) using soil C sequestration and land-apply trade-offs as additional comparative metrics in addition to GHG emissions.
Methods
Site Description
The USDA-certified organic farm, White Oak Pastures (WOP), is in Clay County, GA, and spans 1,214 ha of country. The prevailing soil types are Faceville, Marlboro, and Greenville fine sandy loam. Boilerplate almanac pelting is i,342 mm yr−1, and mean high and low annual temperatures are 26 and 12°C, respectively (University of GA Environmental Monitoring Network 1957–2016).
Clay County, GA, was a historical scrubland/oak savanna, but agriculture has been and is currently the predominant land utilize (River Valley Regional Commission, 2014). Agronomics in the region most unremarkably employs a general crop rotation of cereal grains, corn, soybeans, cotton, and peanuts. Alternatively, WOP produces five red meat and five poultry species (including eggs)—totaling 142,935 animals annually—which are managed together on the same landscape. WOP acquires degraded croplands and converts them to MSPRs with a 3-year regeneration strategy. In years 1–three, cow–calf pairs are placed on the country at daily stock densities of 23–46 Mg ha−1 and fed hay throughout the winter (hateful daily intake: 10 kg per fauna). This supplies additional manure and organic affair (OM) from unconsumed hay to the soil, which is incorporated into the soil via animal touch on. Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) is and so aerial seeded and allowed to germinate. WOP is certified USDA Organic and thus does not apply chemical fertilizer or herbicides. However, residual chemicals from the transitioning degraded cropland pose a challenge to the farm. This transition procedure is illustrated in Figure 1.
Effigy one. The regeneration process employed by White Oak Pastures. Year 0: Degraded cropland is caused; Years 1–three: Hay is fed to cattle grouped in moderate densities, compost is applied, grass is seeded, and cattle and poultry are grazed at low stock densities; Years 3+: Animal stock densities are increased (25 to l Mg ha−one daily), and holistic planned grazing (HPG) is implemented, where animals are rotated ofttimes and country is rested between grazing events; Advanced Regeneration: Represents a regenerative landscape (no seedings, added hay or compost since yr 3) including rotations of diverse animal species with improved soil health and h2o cycling.
A combination of fertility practices is used to provide additional nutrients to the soil, including 1-cm compost application (produced and sourced on farm), and the improver of pastured layers or broiler chickens supplemented with feed. As conditions amend and fodder quantity increases (years 4 and beyond), compost awarding is ceased, and cattle are then grazed using holistic planned grazing methodology (Savory and Butterfield, 2016). Holistic planned grazing (HPG) is a grazing process that entails high fauna stock densities, division of the land into temporary small subunits (paddocks), and advisedly planned herd movements that human action in concert with forage availability and seasonality. Land managers use HPG with varying degrees of paddock "remainder and recovery" periods to meet goals such equally land improvement, increased livestock productivity, and maintenance of seasonal wildlife habitats. The manager at WOP uses livestock to defoliate plants at high stock densities (25–50 Mg ha−ane daily) and and so quickly moves them off the grazed paddock daily to let the grazed plants to enter full recovery. All beef cattle are in i single herd as opposed to the conventional practice of group animals by cow–calf, yearlings, and bulls. The concluding MSPR includes cattle, small ruminants (sheep and goats), poultry species (laying hens, guinea fowl, turkeys, ducks, and geese), swine, and rabbits, which are moved together in diverse herd combinations across the farm.
Clovers, forbs, and nut (primarily pecan) bearing trees are as well introduced into the farm landscape to increase native plant multifariousness and to replicate historic oak-savanna silvopastoral atmospheric condition. These silvopastoral landscapes are also used for on-farm hog product, which is i of several other enterprises including USDA-certified organic produce, agritourism, and an on-farm restaurant.
Life Cycle Cess
All emissions were calculated using a deterministic environmental impact model created in MS Excel with standard IPCC GHG inventory methodologies (IPCC, 2006). Face-to-face meetings, farm records, and a semistructured in-person interview with the farmer yielded model inputs and outputs. Questions included subcontract size and direction practices (both spatial and temporal), number of animal units for each livestock category, exogenous input amounts and sources, product indicators, packing plant throughput, and quantification of animals not grown on-farm, but harvested at the on-farm USDA-inspected abattoir. Subsequent composting methods and application data were also collected. All major GHGs [methyl hydride (CHiv), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O)] from direct and indirect sources were calculated using either Tier 1 (soil CH4 and N2O) or ii (enteric CH4, Ym = six.0) (IPCC, 2006) methodologies. Other emissions including feed production and transport, on-farm and abattoir energy utilisation, and compost product were calculated (EPA, 2020). Emissions from energy used for equipment industry were excluded based on their minor contribution (< ~three%) (Lupo et al., 2013). All gasses were converted to CO2 equivalents (CO2-eastward) using current 100-yr global warming potentials (CO2 = 1, CHiv = 30.5, N2O = 265). Nosotros defined the functional unit for this model as kg of CO2-e per kg of meat on a CW footing (kg COtwo-e kg CW−one).
Soil Sampling and Analyses
To estimate soil C sequestration rate and changes in other soil health indicators, soils were sampled forth a 20-year degraded cropland to MSPR chronosequence. The chronosequence consisted of a currently cultivated cropland (year 0) and fields converted from cropland to pasture 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, and 20 years agone. Yr 0 represents land that has been continuously farmed for a minimum of a decade with rotations of corn (Zea mays), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), wheat (Triticum), and soybeans (Glycine max). The country was routinely tilled, and chemic fertilizer and herbicides were applied annually. Initial state transformation began in year one when off-farm hay was practical beyond the degraded state and so fed to cattle grouped in relatively loftier stock densities (25–50 Mg ha−1 daily). This helps to both suspension up capped soil and more evenly disperse nutrients dorsum into the soil from manure, urine, and residual hay. The following jump, grass was aerial seeded onto the land. In years i–3, these fields are minimally grazed and receive 1 cm of compost ha−i yr−1. Subsequently twelvemonth three, exogenous inputs (hay and compost) were ceased, and the regeneration strategy shifted toward an animal-only arroyo, whereby animals were the primary mechanism of improving the country. This was done by increasing grazing exposure, introducing multiple livestock species including pastured poultry into the MSPR, and continually rotating animals beyond the state using HPG. Year twenty represents a grassland site that did not receive compost or poultry bear upon, only planned beef cattle grazing.
In the spring of 2018, soil samples were collected from each field. Our objective was to find a site that had no creature impact for the yr 0 chronosequence site. Even so, this location had received one instance of animal impact via hay feeding at the time of sampling. Therefore, we chose to resample at a newly acquired location that had received no animal bear on and was more than indicative of a true twelvemonth 0. We and then chose to use data from the newly caused site equally year 0, and the information from the originally sampled site equally year ane. We set out to collect a minimum of iv soil cores at intervals spaced ten m apart along set transects. However, considering of dry out conditions, we were able to collect but ane intact soil cadre from the year 0 site. Although there was very petty difference in soil C stock betwixt twelvemonth 0 and twelvemonth 1, nosotros elected to include this in the model every bit a true twelvemonth 0 site. Nosotros also experienced dry, hard sampling conditions in year 13, enabling collection of two intact soil cores.
Each field was sampled inside the dominant soil type according to Web Soil Survey, which was either a Faceville, Marlboro, or Greenville sandy loam in each location. At each sampling location, four 1-m soil cores were sampled (although soil conditions prevented all four samples at the 50- to 100-cm depth from beingness collected at some sites) using a five.7-cm diameter Giddings probe (Windsor, CO) for soil C analysis, and eight x-cm soil cores were collected using a iii.2-cm-diameter hand probe for soil health analysis. Meter-deep intact soil cores were separated into 0- to x-, 10- to xxx-, 30- to 50-, and 50- to 100-cm depths and sieved to viii mm. Samples from each location were analyzed past depth for bulk density (20-g subsamples were weighed, dried at 105°C, and reweighed to determine the mass of dry soil per unit volume) and soil C [soils were ground on a ball mill and analyzed using a CN analyzer (LECO CHN-2000 autoanalyzer)], and later averaged to obtain field-level means. We used the minimum equivalent mass (Lee et al., 2009) to convert C concentrations to C stocks (Mg C ha−ane).
Manus cores (x-cm depth) were placed on ice the evening of collection and delivered overnight to Cornell University. Samples were analyzed by sampling location for the Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health, which is a suite of soil tests including texture by hydrometer, pH, moisture aggregate stability, permanganate oxidizable (active) C (POXC), microbial respiration via 4-24-hour interval incubation, autoclave citrate-extractable (ACE) soil protein, and available water-holding capacity (AWC); (Moebius-Clune et al., 2016). Soil wellness analyses were not performed on the twelvemonth 0 site.
Soil dirt contents ranged from 5 to twenty%. To the lowest degree-squares ways of equivalent mass carbon stocks, moisture aggregate stability, agile C, ACE soil protein, and microbial respiration were calculated to account for clay content as a covariate where clay was meaning (α = 0.05). Clay was not a significant covariate for water-holding capacity. Soil C sequestration charge per unit was calculated using linear regression on least-squares means of carbon stocks. All statistical analyses were completed using RStudio Team 2019 with the packet lsmeans (Boston, MA).
Comparing to COM Brute Production
To understand the relative emissions and state use of the MSPR examined in this analysis, we compared beef, pork, and poultry results of this LCA to COM agricultural output of beef (Rotz et al., 2019), pork, and poultry (Gerber et al., 2013).
We retrospectively adamant land needed to grow feed (for pork, poultry, and feedlot beefiness) or graze and grass-finish beef cattle based on the CW output of the WOP MSPR and the Georgia crop and hay production averages (USDA NASS, 2018). For the non-ruminant diets, nosotros used an 80% corn, 20% soybean meal diet per COM standard production. Importantly, pork and poultry finishing diets are more variable than our standard ration and can include dried distiller'due south grains and synthetic amino acids amidst other feedstuffs. Because of the difficulty of accounting for these differences across a big geographical context, we chose a standard baseline for diet comparison.
For the beef cattle land comparing, we first used the number of moo-cow–calf pairs necessary to produce the annual beef output (268,777 kg year−1) at WOP for 1 year (n = 992). Stocking rate for the system was calculated based on existing Georgia recommendations (0.81 ha per cow; D. Hancock, personal communication, 2019). Full land needed for grazing and hay was calculated at 0.66 ha per grass-finished steer in the MSPR. Because beef grown in feedlots are considerably heavier and require less land for feed, we used beef CWs and land use information from Stanley et al. (2018) to adjust cows and state needed for feed product. Nosotros also calculated the additional hay needed for supplementation in the COM system using the Stanley et al. (2018) feedlot diets and then divided by the mean hay product per acre in Georgia (USDA NASS, 2018).
Results
Meat Production and Emissions
Overall animal productivity and GHG emissions of the MSPR system are reported in Tables 1, 2. Beefiness, poultry, and swine incorporate 96% of the overall production on a CW basis. Each year, the MSPR at WOP (including all animals) harvests 143,372 animals, totaling 637,910 kg of full CW. Summing all animals in the MSPR, the farm produces 525 kg CW ha−1. Thus, the overall productivity of the total MSPR is essentially college when compared to grass-finished beefiness only (221 kg CW ha−1).
Table 1. Overall market creature production and carcass output.
Table 2. Overall subcontract emissions past animal species.
While beef cattle comprise 42% of overall CW production, their emission on a CO2-e kg CW basis is higher than in other systems. Cattle contribute 33.55 kg CO2-due east kg CW−1, whereas swine and all poultry contribute 15.15 and ix.69 kg CO2-e kg CW−1, respectively. The beef cattle contribute 68% of total subcontract emissions, totaling 9,018,105 kg COtwo-e. Poultry was the second greatest contributor to overall emissions at 20%, while contributing 43% to the overall farm product. Emissions from swine production marshal evenly with productivity, totaling 7% of the subcontract GHG footprint and ten% of farm production. Eggs and all other species, primarily sheep and goats, contribute <1% of the overall farm GHG footprint.
Total farm emissions categorized by animal production, feed, land, and slaughter vary past species. Beef cattle account for about 95% of creature and 52% of land emissions. Poultry production, the second largest contributor to on-farm productivity, is responsible for 63% of total feed emissions and 68% of total slaughter emissions. The MSPR total carbon footprint was xiii,225,972 kg CO2-e, with animals as the greatest emissions category (58%), followed past land (twenty%) and feed (19%).
Soil Parameters
Nosotros observed substantial increases across a suite of soil wellness indicators over the 20-year chronosequence (Tabular array 3). Wet amass stability increased from 0 to 53% over the chronosequence, with a v-fold increase between years 3 and 20 (p = 0.02). Microbial respiration increased from 0 to 0.56 mg CO2 mean solar day−1 by yr 3 and i.sixteen mg COtwo twenty-four hour period−1 by year xx (p = 0.03), whereas POXC increased x-fold beyond the chronosequence (p < 0.01). ACE protein, which estimates the amount of mineralizable organic Northward, increased from 0 to 23 mg g−1 over the chronosequence, with a 4-fold increase from year iii to year xx (p < 0.01). At that place was no observable increment in AWC.
Table 3. Soil indicators.
Soil Carbon Sequestration
In addition to soil health indicators, we also measured SOC stock from year 0, prior to MSPR initiation, to year 20. Initially, SOC stocks were ~10 Mg C ha−1 and increased to 50 Mg C ha−i in twelvemonth 20, a v-fold increase across xx years of direction. The highest measured soil C stock was in twelvemonth 13, measuring 65 Mg C ha−ane. Importantly, the year 20 site received no compost applications or poultry disturbance and reflected only the touch of grazing and perennial conversion from annual cropland. Soil carbon stocks at equivalent minimum mass increased linearly at a rate of 2.29 Mg C ha−1 twelvemonth−1 (p = 0.04, R 2 = 0.60; Figure 2). Field-level standard errors for each soil depth is given in Supplemental Info (Supplementary Table ane). Soil OM (SOM; Table iii) concentration reflected comparable increases at the surface from 1 to five% in years 0 and 20, respectively. Overall, the transition from a conventional row crop model to MSPR improved soil concrete and biological attributes and consequently significantly improved soil C stocks.
Figure 2. Soil carbon stock at equivalent soil mass of 9,900 Mg/ha. Points represent least-squared means adapted for soil dirt content generated from 4 in-field replicate soil samples.
The overall MSPR beef footprint totaled 33.55 kg CO2-due east kg CW−i and was 36.5% greater compared to the COM beef GHG footprint (21.iii kg CO2-east kg CW−1). The greatest emission disparity between production methods was observed in pork, where MSPR pork was 3-fold greater compared to a COM production footprint (15.fifteen vs. 4.vi kg CO2-e kg CW−1 for MSPR and COM pork, respectively). The MSPR poultry was over twice that of COM poultry but in each product system represented the least emission intensity of all species analyzed in the model (Effigy 3).
Effigy 3. Comparison of a Article and Multi-Species Pasture Rotation (MSPR) CO2-e on a kg CW basis past specie (left) and so aggregated for the mean overall net subcontract emission with and without soil C sequestration (right).
We adjacent totaled all emissions in each species production category and present the overall cyberspace emission for the MSPR as compared to COM. The overall MSPR carbon footprint for poultry, pork, and beef produced on farm totaled 20.8 kg CO2-due east kg CW−ane, 44% greater than COM, which totaled 11.nine kg CO2-e kg CW−1 for all livestock species produced.
We integrated measured soil C sequestration (Figure 2) into the internet emissions from MSPR and COM. We used hateful soil C sequestration of 2.29 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for MSPR and considered COM to exist in a soil C dynamic equilibrium. Incorporation of soil C sequestration as a GHG sink in the MSPR system reduced emissions from 20.eight to 4.1 kg CO2-due east kg CW−1 representing an ~5-fold drop in emission intensity. The resulting 4.1 kg COii-e kg CW−i of net MSPR emissions then become vii.8 kg CO2-e kg CW−ane lower than COM. These results point to the dramatic changes that can occur in animate being protein LCA when bookkeeping for changes in soil C stocks over fourth dimension. Importantly, if we were to aspect the soil C sequestration beyond the chronosequence to just cattle, MSPR beef produced in this system would exist a net sink of −four.4 kg COtwo-e kg CW−1 annually.
Finally, in Effigy four, nosotros calculated the country required to produce all proteins in the COM and MSPR models. The required state to graze beef and supply feed for each species (poultry, pork, and beefiness) is considerably greater for the MSPR system than COM. The MSPR required 2.5 times more than land when compared to COM to produce the same amount of CW. Thus, while our model indicates that MSPR can simultaneously produce poly peptide while increasing soil health indicators and soil C stock, a considerably greater land surface area is needed when compared to COM.
Effigy four. Comparison of a Commodity and Multi-Species Pasture Rotation (MSPR) for country needed to graze beefiness and supply feed for poultry (275,242 kg), pork (65,049 kg) and beef (268,777 kg) similar to outputs of monitored MSPR farm.
Give-and-take
Meat Production and Emissions
We report beast production and resulting emission metrics of an MSPR production system whose owner's primary goal is to farm regeneratively. Gosnell et al. (2019) define regenerative agronomics equally an "alternative" form of food and cobweb production oriented toward enhancing resilience and ecological health.
With respect to on-farm production, 42% of the overall farm CW was produced from cattle, where the mean grass-finished beef CW was 271 kg hd−one. Most beef LCAs measure productivity on an brute functioning basis vs. actually indicating a CW (Pelletier et al., 2010b; Lupo et al., 2013) or determine the amount of animals necessary to produce a certain amount of beefiness (Capper, 2012). However, nosotros were only able to collect CWs from the packing facility, making comparisons back to a live weight productivity difficult. However, our reported MSPR finished beef CW closely aligns with Stanley et al. (2018), who reported a 280 kg hd−i in an adaptive multipaddock (AMP) grazing system—a similar management strategy, merely using beefiness cattle only. Importantly, these results show that grass-finished CWs are ~33% lower than existing grain-finishing beef LCAs (Pelletier et al., 2010b; Lupo et al., 2013; Stanley et al., 2018).
The interview with the owner of WOP indicated that the average age of slaughtered beef cattle was between 20 and 22 months of age (information not shown). This is considerably less than a recent study by Heflin et al. (2019), who modeled a grass finishing system in the lower Southern Plains and indicated a fourth dimension to slaughter of 30 months with an boilerplate CW 40 kg greater than our MSPR system. However, that the WOP MSPR organization reached similar CWs 10 months sooner, comparatively, than other grass-finished beef systems is an important comeback that both reduced GHG emissions over a shorter lifetime while simultaneously producing other food animal proteins.
Life bicycle emissions for beef cattle in the MSPR were 33.55 kg CO2-e kg CW−ane. This is thirty% higher than the well-nigh current models evaluating business organization-as-usual beefiness cattle production systems (with grain finishing) in the Usa (Rotz et al., 2019). This is due to the widely accepted fact that grass-finished cattle have a higher enteric CHiv footprint than those finished on grain because of differences in feed digestibility. In our report, 81% of beef cattle footprint is attributed to enteric CH4. However, the proportional trade-offs of specific GHGs in each product organisation are also important to consider. For example, while enteric CH4 in the MSPR was proportionately loftier, CH4 is a short-lived climate pollutant where C is contained in existing biomass and cycled quickly through the atmosphere, lasting on average 10 years earlier being oxidized (Lynch et al., 2020; Thompson, 2020). Alternatively, although overall emissions in grain-finished beefiness systems are lower, the portion of fossil-fuel derived emissions is higher, including CO2 and N2O (lasting 1,000 and 100 years on average, respectively) arising from fertilizer production and awarding for fodder crops and fossil fuel–derived energy utilisation (Picasso et al., 2014). Pierrehumbert and Eshel (2015) also report less overall climate affect of pastured-beef systems with no or minimal fertilization, despite greater enteric CH4 emissions compared to feedlot systems. Contempo IPCC estimates evidence that global COtwo and North2O concentrations have been rising more rapidly than CHiv, which has been plateauing (IPCC, 2014). The shorter life span of CH4 in the atmosphere, even so, also makes information technology an bonny target for virtually-term GHG mitigation.
The beef cattle in the MSPR stand for the largest emission source in the production system for iii reasons: they make up the largest group of animals in the system, they produce high CWs, and they contribute more than CO2-due east per kg of CW compared with other livestock categories. Studies accept demonstrated that intensive feeding and management of beef cattle in grain-fed system effect in higher CW and lowest overall CO2-e kg−ane emission (Heflin et al., 2019; Kamilaris et al., 2020). However, they generally lack a systems perspective to net GHG fluxes, thereby omitting soil carbon sequestration, which has bang-up potential to mitigate GHG emissions for grass-fed systems (Liebig et al., 2010; Pelletier et al., 2010a). Inclusion of field-measured soil C sequestration (as a CO2-eastward sink) has been shown to completely mitigate the C footprint of intensively managed grass-finished cattle in some specific cases (Stanley et al., 2018) and drastically lower (but not neutralize it) in others (Machmuller et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Hillenbrand et al., 2019). Although few exist, these cases present a unique nexus that (a) alleviates the pressure to use input and fossil-fuel intensive product systems to maximize cattle gains and lower per-kg CO2-e and (b) maximizes biological ecosystem functions to reduce net GHG emissions while maintaining productivity.
Less dichotomy exists in comparison the MSPR pork and poultry outputs to generally accustomed COM pork and poultry outputs. More difficulty arises when comparison pastured poultry models in the literature. For pastured broiler but models, recommendations range from 500 to as much as ane,000 broilers 0.twoscore ha−one, with almost all nutrients coming from cropland derived feed instead of pasture (Meeh et al., 2014). At WOP, 445,182 eggs were produced using the MSPR, weighing an average of 49.6 1000 (information not shown) totaling 22,106 kg of eggs.
Although poultry production, including eggs, represents 46.five% of the total carcass weight in this organisation, they contribute only 20% of total carbon footprint. Feed production for poultry was the largest impact category (Tongpool et al., 2012; MacLeod et al., 2013), mainly comprising free energy- and protein-rich ingredients (more than than lx%). In our system, emissions from feed totaled sixty.6% of the full poultry carbon footprint. For eggs, nevertheless, emissions associated with slaughter (processing and transport) outpaced those from feed production, contributing 89 and seven%, respectively. Poultry-meat produces a greater emissions footprint than eggs partly because rations for broiler chickens, on boilerplate, include a college share of soybean products, which are sourced from areas where land-use change is taking place (MacLeod et al., 2013).
Feed production was proportionally the greatest emission source for both poultry and swine, whose diets consisted of primarily corn (80%) and soybean (20%) products. These results are generally consistent across the literature, although COM swine production systems oftentimes take larger GHG footprints associated with facilities (Pelletier et al., 2010a; Eshel et al., 2014; Kebreab et al., 2016; Tallaksen et al., 2020).
Soil Parameters
We observed large increases across the suite of soil wellness indicators examined in the MSPR chronosequence, indicating improvements in soil function every bit a effect of perennial institution and regenerative MSPR management at WOP. SOM is related to nearly every soil-related ecosystem service including water and food cycling, habitat for biodiversity, and erosion control (Wall et al., 2012). Observed increases in SOM were likely mediated past greater aggregation, equally aggregation is 1 of the primary mechanisms of SOM stabilization via physical protection and microbial habitat (Tisdall and Oades, 1982; Gupta and Germida, 2015), and nosotros observed a 5-fold increment in both SOM and wet aggregate stability over the chronosequence. Additionally, higher wet aggregate stability indicates an improved ability to maintain soil structural integrity in the face of events such every bit extreme precipitation, leading to greater h2o infiltration and reduced erosion (Franzluebbers, 2002). We expected these increases in aggregation and SOM to translate to greater AWC. However, we did non observe an increase in AWC across the chronosequence, further adding to literature suggesting the link between SOM and AWC is not as pronounced as previously thought (Minasny and Mcbratney, 2017).
Rapid responses in microbial respiration (2-fold increase), ACE protein (5-fold increase), and active C (10-fold increment) during the chronosequence indicate the enhancement of soil C and N cycling with MSPR. Microbial activity in annual cropland soils is often limited by C availability (Schimel, 1986), and the increase in active C and microbial respiration observed within the first several years of the chronosequence reflects the alleviation of C limitation via greater C inputs in the perennial MSPR system. Additionally, increased ACE poly peptide reflects a growing puddle of readily mineralizable organic N equally a result of greater institute inputs, animal manures, and additions of other organic materials such as compost. Large reservoirs of organic Northward coupled with an active microbial customs are critical for efficiently coming together plant Due north needs in agroecosystems, as organic Northward released slowly through mineralization is more efficiently utilized than pulse additions of inorganic N via synthetic fertilizer (Gardner and Drinkwater, 2009). Together, the improvements across the suite of soil health backdrop measured here indicate that the building blocks for a growing microbial community in soils under MSPR management were met, ultimately contributing to the increased soil C pool and more efficient Due north cycling.
Soil Carbon Sequestration
Over the 20-year chronosequence, the MSPR system at WOP sequestered an average of 2.29 Mg C ha−1 yr−i (Figure 2). However, the oldest location in the chronosequence received grazing only rather than all management practices practical to younger sites (e.grand., compost). Thus, the boilerplate C sequestration rate may have been higher if this site were more than representative of the entire chronosequence.
Compared to other literature, our estimated soil C sequestration charge per unit lies toward the college end—both above (Wang et al., 2015; Conant et al., 2017) and below (Stanley et al., 2018) reported values from others. It is of import to note that each system is unique and that resulting soil C sequestration with the awarding of a management arrangement like the MSPR employed by WOP will differ based on land employ history (eastward.g., conversion from cropland or overgrazed pasture), fourth dimension since adoption (discussed more in detail beneath), and changing weather conditions (eastward.g., drought) amid other factors. For case, Stanley et al. (2018) reported boilerplate SOC sequestration after v-year conversion from continuous haying and grazing to AMP grazing (coordinating to the HPG system used at WOP, but with cattle grazing merely). Our system reflects a longer transition, over twenty years, which may explicate the lower average sequestration charge per unit, comparatively. Alternatively, the MSPR organization in this study was employed after conversion from degraded cropland, was combined with compost application, and was conducted in a non-arid ecosystem. These practices explain the higher relative sequestration rates compared to some others (Wang et al., 2015; Conant et al., 2017).
In this report, SOC sequestration is estimated via a space-for-time commutation rather than directly measuring SOC alter over time. While information technology has limitations, without baseline SOC data for each field, the chronosequence approach is the best alternative for measuring temporal SOC changes with differing management when compared within soil types and has been used widely throughout the ecological sciences (Walker et al., 2010).
Our estimated SOC sequestration rate (2.29 Mg C ha−1 twelvemonth−ane) is an average over 20 years. To better assess temporal dynamics of SOC sequestration, we tin likewise clarify how the sequestration charge per unit changes over fourth dimension. It is normally assumed that there is a finite capacity of soils to store C and that sequestration rates will irksome over time as soils come closer to a "saturation" point. Our results betoken a sharp increment in SOC stocks from years ane to three, with slower increases from years 5 to 13. Soil C stock at the oldest MSPR site (at 20 years) indicated a slightly lower soil C stock than the 13-year site, which may suggest a peak soil C accumulation at ~thirteen years since institution of the MSPR. However, we do not believe this is indicative of a declining sequestration rate due to proximity to saturation. Rather, nosotros posit that this is an artifact of management differences betwixt the sites, as the twenty-year site received grazing only, rather than the entire suite of management interventions (i.e., compost, poultry manure) that were practical to all other MSPR sites across the farm.
Further, carbon stock solitary does not allow us to make conclusions about soil C storage chapters, which can be meliorate informed by the relative distribution of soil C between mineral-associated OM (MAOM) and particulate OM (POM) (Cotrufo et al., 2019). These authors as well showed that soil C in grasslands is independent mostly in the MAOM fraction, which is often microbially processed and high in North, making information technology highly persistent and stable in soils (Lavallee et al., 2020). MAOM besides saturates in soils considering of the finite availability of mineral surfaces to sorb OM. Still, the authors as well suggest that POM tin can be indefinitely accrued in soils irrespective of MAOM saturation and, further, that almost grassland soils are unlikely to be "saturated" with respect to MAOM-C. We did not fractionate SOM into MAOM and POM pools in this analysis; nevertheless, given the large increases in soil assemblage, it is probable that POM is increasing with MSPR adoption in this system, considering POM persistence is largely dependent on aggregation. Further, results presented by Cotrufo et al. (2019) and others (Westward and Half dozen, 2007; Jagadamma et al., 2014; Nicoloso et al., 2018) atomic number 82 us to question the certainty of soil C saturation in grassland soils.
The results of other soil parameters in add-on to the SOC sequestration in this written report let u.s. to infer direction drivers as well every bit functional changes in the soil. In general, soil C stock can be increased by (a) increasing C inputs to the soil or (b) reducing the relative rate of loss (every bit CO2) via decomposition or stabilization, which reduces emissions to the atmosphere that would otherwise occur (Conant et al., 2017). In our MSPR organisation, C inputs were increased in 3 ways, by the increment of native and perennial institute variety nether MSPR every bit clovers, forbs, and nut bearing trees; by the add-on of compost and manure from livestock; and via exogeneous poultry feed. Farther, the brusk-duration, loftier-intensity grazing (otherwise termed HPG; as well as rotation with other animals) used in this system has been shown to maximize plant residue left in the pasture and improve below-basis soil C allocation via plant roots (Teague et al., 2011).
Soil C sequestration is a vital ecosystem function to mitigate climate change. Here, we demonstrate that land restoration using MSPR is an important regenerative agronomical tool to back up this effort.
Internet GHG Footprint and Country Utilize
While the GHG footprint of the MSPR is considerably greater than corresponding COM estimates (Figure 3), the reverse is true afterward incorporation of the on-farm soil C sequestration as a GHG sink. When because only standard LCA boundaries on a kg CO2-e kg CW−one, animals in the COM organisation are more efficient—gaining more than weight in less time and thus contributing 43% fewer GHGs (MSPR: 20.8 kg CO2-e kg CW−i vs. COM: 11.9 kg CO2-e kg CW−ane). However, our on-subcontract analysis of soil C accrual at WOP revealed a sequestration rate of 2.29 Mg C ha−i year−1, on average, over 20 years of MSPR adoption. After incorporating this into our LCA boundaries, this reduced the GHG footprint of the MSPR system by 80% (from xx.8 to four.1 kg CO2-east kg CW−1), ultimately finishing at 66% lower than comparative COM production.
Nevertheless, when comparison required state between the two food production systems, MSPR required ii.5 times more land than COM production. Thus, while our model indicates that MSPR can simultaneously produce poly peptide while regenerating state and can contribute other ecosystem services, a considerably greater land expanse is needed when compared to COM. However, MSPR is well-suited for more marginal lands while requiring fewer exogenous inputs such every bit feed stocks. Consequently, increased implementation of MSPR on marginal lands, including degraded cropland, could gratis up more productive land for product of higher value and more nutrient dense crops. Theoretically, this merchandise-off in land use could also, to an extent, partially mitigate the greater land area needed for MSPR livestock production vs. COM.
Our results present an important notwithstanding paradoxical conclusion on land and nutrient product balance in the face of climate modify. Should guild prioritize an input-intensive, COM system that produces more food from a smaller, yet degrading state base with externalized societal costs? Or, alternatively, should systems such every bit MSPR that produce less nutrient on a larger, but more ecologically functional and diverse landscape be more highly valued? These complexities must be considered in the global debate of agronomical practice and land, as state-management strategies that prioritize soil health to regenerate agroecosystems are increasingly needed to meet the needs of a growing population.
Regardless of the starting point on whatever subcontract or ranch, we promise to emphasize the importance of diversifying as a process to provide and enhance ecosystem services that are condign increasingly of import in addition to nutrient product, such as resiliency and adaptive capacity to extreme weather, nutrient cycling, water retention, and climate modify mitigation. Teague et al. (2016) provides a cadre of tools to improve ecosystem services in both cropping and grazing systems, which tin be implemented by farms and ranches of all production types. For instance, reducing and eliminating tillage, maintaining soil comprehend with cover crops, increasing biodiversity and food cycling via integrated crop-livestock systems, and maximizing balance periods in grazing-only systems are all tangible actions for regenerating agroecosystems (Brewer and Gaudin, 2020). The WOP MSPR examined in this written report exemplifies a farm using a highly evolved production system at the far stop of the diversification spectrum.
Lastly, although nosotros highlight the need for more than enquiry on diversified livestock production systems, the benefits of diversified agroecological production systems for the provisioning of ecosystem services are well-established. The results of this research bespeak us to other important and timely questions of farmer do adoption, payment for ecosystem services (PES), and other incentivization mechanisms (Gosnell et al., 2020). Currently, underdeveloped PES and carbon markets present major challenges to the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices in the United states. As it becomes increasingly clear that deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies (potentially via PES), in addition to GHG mitigation measures, volition be necessary to coming together our climate goals, regenerative agriculture is arising as a practice with clear CCS potential. Thus, we recommend that federal monetization strategies be developed to increase adoption of regenerative agricultural practices simultaneously to ongoing inquiry, rather than sequentially.
Conclusions and Implications
Diversified livestock product systems are highly underrepresented in scientific literature, despite bear witness of widespread global utilise (Robinson et al., 2011). We present, to our cognition, the most robust analysis of an MSPR organization in the scientific literature comprising beef, pork, and poultry. In improver to concern-as-usual LCA methodology, nosotros also incorporated measured on-subcontract soil health parameters, including soil C sequestration. Virtually ofttimes, animal product LCAs are generated for one species of livestock and besides are analyzed with broad-based formulas generated from empirical models beyond large geographical contexts. Our study provides unique model parameters for an actual farm in the United States, populated with on-farm generated vs. literature derived production metrics with bodily soil C and subsequent soil wellness data across time and space.
This study provides interesting new context to electric current agricultural debates, including those surrounding land-sharing vs. land-sparing, sustainable intensification, and the use of regenerative agriculture to sequester soil C. WOP is a USDA Organic MSPR employing principles of regenerative agriculture through holistic management. As defined by Gosnell et al. (2019), regenerative agriculture "focuses on enhancing and restoring holistic, regenerative, resilient systems supported by functional ecosystem processes and healthy, organic soils capable of producing a full suite of ecosystem services, amongst them soil carbon sequestration and improved soil water retention." Our results point that this arrangement does, in fact, regenerate ecological role including soil wellness, resilience, GHG mitigation, and biodiversity. Information technology accomplishes this by managing animals intensively (not to exist confused with input-intensity) in an otherwise all-encompassing system (no chemical fertilizers, biocides, tillage, etc.). When comparing this approach to a business organisation-as-usual COM-based approach, and including soil C sequestration, the overall emission footprint of the regenerative agriculture arroyo was three-fold less. Adoption of practices such every bit the MSPR investigated in this study should exist incentivized at a greater scale while concomitantly investigating technologies and approaches that tin reduce the necessary land needed to produce the regenerative proteins.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Writer Contributions
JR led overall project management, data assay, and writing. PS contributed in project conception, data direction, and writing. IM oversaw dataset management for production and emissions of all livestock in the White Oak Pastures production system and also assisted with writing. MT oversaw life cycle assessment model development, and assisted with writing. SR oversaw all soil information collection, laboratory analysis, and statistical analysis of information and assisted with writing. DH assisted with chronsequence development, provided overall guidance on the farm site, and assisted with writing. AG adult and created the figures. MR aided in project conception and assisted with writing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
General Mills Inc funded the project in entirety.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare receiving funding from General Mills Inc. The funders had the following interest in the report: funding for the project design, soil and data collection, soil assay and overall life bike assessment.
This project began under the auspices of collecting information solely for the internal use of General Mills Inc. Later on data collection and assay, General Mills Inc. gave the authors permission to publish the projection results in manuscript form.
SR was an employee of General Mills Inc. MT was an employee of Quantis International at the fourth dimension of report completion.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed equally a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the WOP Subcontract: Will Harris, Jenni Harris and Jodi Harris Benoit and the all staff who provided information for this study. Secondly Jeff Hanratty and Jerry Lynch with General Mills Inc. were instrumental in funding this project. Equally supportive, Jon Dettling from Quantis provided important input and guidance for the project. Finally, Taylor Collins and Katie Forrest from Epic Provisions were instrumental in advocating and supporting this project.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Fabric for this commodity tin can be found online at: https://world wide web.frontiersin.org/manufactures/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full#supplementary-material
References
Beauchemin, K. A., Janzen, H. H., Lilliputian, S. M., McAllister, T. A., and McGinn, Southward. M. (2011). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada–evaluation using subcontract-based life wheel cess. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166–167, 663–677. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.047
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Brewer, K. M., and Gaudin, A. C. (2020). Potential of crop-livestock integration to enhance carbon sequestration and agroecosystem functioning in semi-arid croplands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 149:107936. doi: x.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107936
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Capper, J. 50. (2012). Is the grass always greener? comparing the environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Animals ii, 127–143. doi: 10.3390/ani2020127
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cardoso, A. S., Berndt, A., Leytem, A., Alves, B. J. R., de Carvalho, I., das, Northward. O., et al. (2016). Impact of the intensification of beef product in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions and state use. Agric. Syst. 143, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.007
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., and Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland direction impacts on soil carbon stocks: a new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 27, 662–668. doi: x.1002/eap.1473
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cotrufo, M. F., Ranalli, Thou. G., Haddix, M. L., Six, J., and Lugato, Eastward. (2019). Soil carbon storage informed by particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Nat. Geosci. 12, 989–994. doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0484-6
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
EPA (2019). Inventory of U.Due south. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Google Scholar
Eshel, Yard., Shepon, A., Makov, T., and Milo, R. (2014). Country, irrigation h2o, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. UsA. 111, 11996–12001. doi: x.1073/pnas.1402183111
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
FAO (2014). The State of Food and Agronomics: Innovation in Family Farming. Rome: FAO.
Follett, R., Kimble, J., and Lal, R., (eds.). (2000). "The potential of U.S. grazing lands to sequester soil carbon," in The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect, (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 401–427. doi: 10.1201/9781420032468.sec5
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Franzluebbers, A. J. (2002). Water infiltration and soil structure related to organic matter and its stratification with depth. Soil Tillage Res. 66, 197–205. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00027-2
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gardner, J. B., and Drinkwater, L. East. (2009). The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: a meta-assay of 15N field experiments. Ecol. Appl. 19, 2167–2184. doi: 10.1890/08-1122.1
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., et al. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock; A Global Cess of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: FAO.
Google Scholar
Gosnell, H., Charnley, S., and Stanley, P. (2020). Climate change mitigation as a co-benefit of regenerative ranching: insights from Australia and the United States. Interface Focus x:20200027. doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2020.0027
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gosnell, H., Gill, N., and Voyer, Yard. (2019). Transformational adaptation on the farm: processes of change and persistence in transitions to 'climate-smart' regenerative agronomics. Glob. Environ. Change 59:101965. doi: ten.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101965
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. West., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 11645–11650. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710465114
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gupta, 5. V. South. R., and Germida, J. J. (2015). Soil aggregation: influence on microbial biomass and implications for biological processes. Soil Biol. Biochem. lxxx, A3–A9. doi: ten.1016/j.soilbio.2014.09.002
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Heflin, K. R., Parker, D. B., Marek, G. Westward., Auvermann, B. W., and Marek, T. H. (2019). Greenhouse-gas emissions of beef finishing systems in the Southern High Plains. Agric. Syst. 176:102674. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102674
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Herrero, K., Thornton, P. K., Notenbaert, A. Thousand., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H. A., et al. (2010). Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Scientific discipline 327, 822–825. doi: 10.1126/science.1183725
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, M., Thompson, R., Wang, F., Apfelbaum, S., and Teague, R. (2019). Impacts of holistic planned grazing with bison compared to continuous grazing with cattle in South Dakota shortgrass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 279, 156–168. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.02.005
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
IPCC (2006). IPCC Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC.
IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, Two and III to the Fifth Assessment Written report of the Intergovernmental Console on Climatic change. Geneva: IPCC. p. 151.
Google Scholar
Jagadamma, S., Mayes, K. A., Zinn, Y. L., Gísladóttir, G., and Russell, A. E. (2014). Sorption of organic carbon compounds to the fine fraction of surface and subsurface soils. Geoderma 213, 79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.030
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kamilaris, C., Dewhurst, R. J., Sykes, A. J., and Alexander, P. (2020). Modelling culling direction scenarios of economic and ecology sustainability of beef finishing systems. J. Clean. Prod. 253:119888. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119888
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kebreab, Eastward., Liedke, A., Caro, D., Deimling, S., Folder, M., and Finkbeiner, M. (2016). Ecology impact of using specialty feed ingredients in swine and poultry production: a life bicycle assessment. J. Anim. Sci. 94, 2664–2681. doi: 10.2527/jas.2015-9036
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kremen, C., Iles, A., and Bacon, C. (2012). Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 17:44. doi: x.5751/ES-05103-170444
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kumar, S., Sieverding, H., Lai, L., Thandiwe, N., Wienhold, B., Redfearn, D., et al. (2019). Facilitating crop–livestock reintegration in the northern great plains. Agron. J. 111, 2141–2156. doi: 10.2134/agronj2018.07.0441
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lavallee, J. M., Soong, J. Fifty., and Cotrufo, M. F. (2020). Conceptualizing soil organic matter into particulate and mineral-associated forms to address global change in the 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 261–273. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14859
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lee, J., Hopmans, J. W., Rolston, D. E., Baer, S. Thousand., and Half-dozen, J. (2009). Determining soil carbon stock changes: Elementary bulk density corrections neglect. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 134, 251–256. doi: x.1016/j.agee.2009.07.006
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Liebig, M. A., Gross, J. R., Kronberg, South. L., Phillips, R. L., and Hanson, J. D. (2010). Grazing direction contributions to net global warming potential: a long-term evaluation in the Northern Great Plains. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 799–809. doi: ten.2134/jeq2009.0272
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lupo, C. D., Clay, D. E., Benning, J. L., and Rock, J. J. (2013). Life-cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the Northern Great Plains, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 42, 1386–1394. doi: x.2134/jeq2013.03.0101
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Lynch, J., Cain, One thousand., Pierrehumbert, R., and Allen, M. (2020). Demonstrating GWP*: a means of reporting warming-equivalent emissions that captures the contrasting impacts of short-and long-lived climate pollutants. Environ. Res. Lett. 15:044023. doi: ten.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7e
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Machmuller, G. B., Kramer, M. G., Cyle, T. One thousand., Hill, North., Hancock, D., and Thompson, A. (2015). Emerging country utilize practices rapidly increase soil organic affair. Nat. Commun. 6:6995. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7995
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text
MacLeod, M., Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Tempio, G., Falcucci, A., Opio, C., et al. (2013). Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and craven supply chain - a global life bicycle cess . Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Google Scholar
Meeh, D. C., Rowntree, J. E., and Hamm, M. W. (2014). Feeding a population with smaller scale and alternating arrangement product: an examination of subcontract requirements with a multi-species pasture system to feed 10 one thousand thousand people. RAF 29, 176–185. doi: 10.1017/S1742170513000070
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Minasny, B., and Mcbratney, A. B. (2017). Limited effect of organic matter on soil available water capacity. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 39–47. doi: 10.1111/ejss.12475
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Moebius-Clune, B. N., Moebius-Clune, D. J., Gugino, B. K., Idowu, O. J., Schindelbeck, R. R., Ristow, A. J., et al. (2016). Comprehensive Assessmentof Soil Health-The Cornell Framework (Transmission). Geneva, NY: Cornell University.
Nicoloso, R. South., Rice, C. W., Amado, T. J. C., Costa, C. Due north., and Akley, Eastward. One thousand. (2018). Carbon saturation and translocation in a no-till soil under organic amendments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 264, 73–84. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.016
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Pelletier, N., Lammers, P., Stender, D., and Pirog, R. (2010a). Life bicycle assessment of loftier- and low-profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper Midwestern U.s.. Agric. Syst. 103, 599–608. doi: x.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Pelletier, North., Pirog, R., and Rasmussen, R. (2010b). Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of 3 beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103, 380–389. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Picasso, V. D., Modernel, P. D., Becoña, Thou., Salvo, Fifty., Gutiérrez, L., and Astigarraga, 50. (2014). Sustainability of meat production beyond carbon footprint: a synthesis of case studies from grazing systems in Uruguay. Meat Sci. 98, 346–354. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.07.005
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, R. T., and Eshel, G. (2015). Climate impact of beef: an analysis because multiple fourth dimension scales and production methods without use of global warming potentials. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:085002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/eight/085002
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
River Valley Regional Commission (2014). Clay Canton Comprehensive Program Update 2014. River Valley Regional Commission.
Rivera-Ferre, M. G., López-i-Gelats, F., Howden, Chiliad., Smith, P., Morton, J. F., and Herrero, G. (2016). Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: mitigation and adaptation options. WIREs Clim. Change vii, 869–892. doi: 10.1002/wcc.421
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Robinson, T. P., Thorton, P. K., Franceschini, G., Kruska, R. L., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A., et al. (2011). Global Livestock Production Systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Constitute (ILRI).
Google Scholar
Rotz, C. A., Asem-Hiablie, Due south., Identify, South., and Thoma, 1000. (2019). Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169, 1–xiii. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.xi.005
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Russelle, Yard. P., Entz, M. H., and Franzluebbers, A. J. (2007). Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in north america. Agron. J. 99, 325–334. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0139
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Savory, A., and Butterfield, J. (2016). Holistic Management, Third Edition: A Commonsense Revolution to Restore Our Surround. Washington, DC: Isle Printing.
Google Scholar
Schimel, D. S. (1986). Carbon and nitrogen turnover in next grassland and cropland ecosystems. Biogeochemistry ii, 345–357. doi: 10.1007/BF02180325
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Schuman, Thousand. E., Janzen, H. H., and Herrick, J. East. (2002). Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 116, 391–396. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00215-nine
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Stanley, P. 50., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, 1000. S., and Hamm, M. W. (2018). Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern United states of america beef finishing systems. Agric. Syst. 162, 249–258. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tallaksen, J., Johnston, 50., Sharpe, K., Reese, M., and Buchanan, E. (2020). Reducing life cycle fossil energy and greenhouse gas emissions for Midwest swine production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 246:118998. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118998
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Teague, R., Provenza, F., Kreuter, U., Steffens, T., and Barnes, Chiliad. (2013). Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: why the perceptual dichotomy betwixt enquiry results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manage. 128, 699–717. doi: x.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Teague, West. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C. A., et al. (2016). The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture'southward carbon footprint in North America. J. Soil Water Conserv. 71, 156–164. doi: 10.2489/jswc.71.2.156
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Teague, W. R., Dowhower, Southward. L., Bakery, Southward. A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P. B., and Conover, D. M. (2011). Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, concrete and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 310–322. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Thompson, L. R. (2020). Invited review: methyl hydride sources, quantification, andmitigation in grazing systems. Appl. Anim. Sci. 36, 556–573. doi: ten.15232/aas.2019-01951
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tisdall, J. M., and Oades, J. 1000. (1982). Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. J. Soil Sci. 33, 141–163. doi: x.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tongpool, R., Phanichavalit, N., Yuvaniyama, C., and Mungcharoen, T. (2012). Improvement of the environmental performance of broiler feeds: a study via life wheel assessment. J. Make clean. Prod. 35, sixteen–24. doi: ten.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.007
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Walker, L. R., Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., and Clarkson, B. D. (2010). The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil evolution. J. Ecol. 98, 725–736. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01664.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Wall, D. H., Behan-Pelletier, V., Ritz, K., Herrick, J. E., Jones, T. H., Half-dozen, J., et al. (2012). Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press.
Google Scholar
Wang, T., Teague, Westward., Park, S., and Bevers, Due south. (2015). GHG mitigation potential of different grazing strategies in the us southern neat plains. Sustainability seven, 13500–13521. doi: 10.3390/su71013500
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
West, T. O., and Vi, J. (2007). Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim. Change 80, 25–41. doi: ten.1007/s10584-006-9173-8
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., and Lehman, C. (2019). Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10:718. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08636-west
CrossRef Total Text
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full