Beef cattle have been identified as the largest livestock-sector contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using life cycle analysis (LCA), several studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater GHG intensities than feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems. These studies evaluated only one grazing management system – continuous grazing – and assumed steady-state soil carbon (C), to model the grass-finishing environmental impact. However, by managing for more optimal forage growth and recovery, adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing can improve animal and forage productivity, potentially sequestering more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous grazing. To examine impacts of AMP grazing and related SOC sequestration on net GHG emissions, a comparative LCA was performed of two different beef finishing systems in the Upper Midwest, USA: AMP grazing and FL. We used on-farm data collected from the Michigan State University Lake City AgBioResearch Center for AMP grazing. Impact scope included GHG emissions from enteric methane, feed production and mineral supplement manufacture, manure, and on-farm energy use and transportation, as well as the potential C sink arising from SOC sequestration. Across-farm SOC data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas FL emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMPgrazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink. However, FL production required only half as much land as AMP grazing. While the SOC sequestration rates measured here were relatively high, lower rates would still reduce the AMP emissions relative to the FL emissions. This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.

To read the full article, follow this link.

To read the full article, follow this link.

Augmentative biological control (ABC) involves the mass production of natural enemies of pests and diseases in the form of predators, parasites or micro-organisms, which are then released to control crop pests (including diseases and weeds). These living pesticides are collectively called ‘biological control agents’. As it offers an environmentally and economically sound alternative to chemical control, ABC is not just of interest to commercial growers, but to retailers, consumers and policymakers.
In this new overview, the researchers describe the important role currently played by biological control and list the many hundreds of agents in use. They argue that ABC is an important part of sustainable agriculture and that new policy measures can promote its use.
Modern ABC began in the 1880s, when the pathogen Metarhizium anisopliae, a fungus, was used to control wheat grain beetles (Anisoplia austriaca) in Russia. Today, it is applied in many areas of agriculture, including fruit and vegetable crops, cereals and sugar cane, often forming part of integrated pest management (IPM), as required by the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. The researchers estimate it is used on 30 million ha worldwide. A particular recent success story is found in Almeria, Spain, where chemical pesticides used on greenhouse-grown sweet peppers were completely replaced by the predatory mite (Amblyseius swirskii) and a parasitoid wasp (Eretmocerus mundus), over the course of two years.

To read the full article, follow this link.

Source: van Lenteren, J.C., Bolckmans, K., Köhl, J., Ravensberg, W.J. and Urbaneja, A. (2017). Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: plenty of new opportunities. BioControl: 1–21.