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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Berti, Marisol & Johnson, Burton & Ripplinger, David & Gesch, Russ & Aponte, Alfredo, 2017. "Environmental impact assessment of double- and relay-cropping with winter camelina in the northern Great Plains, USA," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Nemecek, Thomas & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Dubois, David & Gaillard, Gérard & Schaller, Britta & Chervet, Andreas, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: II. Extensive and intensive production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 233-245, March.
    8. 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.
    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. Cecchin, Andrea & Pourhashem, Ghasideh & Gesch, Russ W. & Lenssen, Andrew W. & Mohammed, Yesuf A. & Patel, Swetabh & Berti, Marisol T., 2021. "Environmental trade-offs of relay-cropping winter cover crops with soybean in a maize-soybean cropping system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Adrián Salvador Morales García & Jorge Luis García‐Alcaraz & Julio Blanco Fernández & Eduardo Martínez Cámara, 2025. "Sustainability in Agave tequilana weber farming: A life cycle assessment," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 823-835, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    6. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    7. Angelo Frascarelli & Stefano Ciliberti & Sofia Maria Lilli & Paolo Pascolini & Jacopo Gabriele Orlando & Margherita Tiradritti, 2025. "Comparative Techno-Economic and Carbon Footprint Analysis of Semi-Extensive and Intensive Beef Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Federica Salari & Chiara Marconi & Irene Sodi & Iolanda Altomonte & Mina Martini, 2025. "Environmental Sustainability of Dairy Cattle in Pasture-Based Systems vs. Confined Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Hanna Karlsson Potter & Dalia M. M. Yacout & Kajsa Henryson, 2023. "Climate Assessment of Vegetable Oil and Biodiesel from Camelina Grown as an Intermediate Crop in Cereal-Based Crop Rotations in Cold Climate Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-17, August.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Sujata Seshadrinathan & Shalini Chandra, 2025. "Trusting the trustless blockchain for its adoption in accounting: theorizing the mediating role of technology-organization-environment framework," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-39, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Martinez, Sara & Alvarez, Sergio & Capuano, Anibal & Delgado, Maria del Mar, 2020. "Environmental performance of animal feed production from Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz: Influence of crop management practices under Mediterranean conditions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.