Carbon Footprint Assessment and Energy Budgeting of Different Annual and Perennial Forage Cropping Systems: A Study from the Semi-Arid Region of Karnataka, India

Abstract

Efficient use of available resources in agricultural production is important to minimize carbon footprint considering the state of climate change. In this context, the current research was conducted to identify carbon and energy-efficient fodder cropping systems for sustainable livestock production. Annual monocropping, perennial monocropping, annual cereal + legume intercropping and perennial cereal + legume intercropping systems were evaluated by employing a randomized complete block design with three replications under field conditions. The lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) monocropping system recorded significantly lower carbon input (274 kg-CE ha−1 year−1) and showed higher carbon indices viz., carbon sustainability index (165.8), the carbon efficiency ratio (166.8) and carbon efficiency (347.5 kg kg-CE−1) over other systems. However, higher green fodder biomass led to statistically higher carbon output (78,542 kg-CE ha−1 year−1) in the Bajra–Napier hybrid (Pennisetum glaucum × Pennisetum purpureum) + lucerne perennial system. Similar to carbon input, lower input energy requirement (16,106 MJ ha−1 year−1) and nutrient energy ratio (25.7) were estimated with the lucerne perennial system. However, significantly higher energy output (376,345 and 357,011 MJ ha−1 year−1) and energy indices viz., energy use efficiency (13.3 and 12.2), energy productivity (5.8 and 5.3 kg MJ−1), net energy (327,811 and 347,961 MJ ha−1 year−1) and energy use efficiency (12.3 and 11.2) were recorded with Bajra–Napier hybrid + legume [lucerne and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.)] cropping systems, respectively. However, these systems were on par with the lucerne monocropping system. Additionally, Bajra–Napier hybrid + legume [cowpea, sesbania (Sesbania grandiflora (L.) Pers.) and lucerne] cropping systems also showed higher human energy profitability. Concerning various inputs’ contribution to total carbon and energy input, chemical fertilizers were identified as the major contributors (73 and 47%), followed by farmyard manure (20 and 22%) used to cultivate crops, respectively, across the cropping systems. Extensive use of indirect (82%) and non-renewable energy sources (69%) was noticed compared to direct (18%) and renewable energy sources (31%). Overall, perennial monocropping and cereal + legume cropping systems performed well in terms of carbon and energy efficiency. However, in green biomass production and carbon and energy efficiency, Bajra–Napier hybrid + legume (lucerne and cowpea) cropping systems were identified as the best systems for climate-smart livestock feed production.

The Impact of Cultivation Systems on Weed Suppression and the Canopy Architecture of Spring Barley

“…As a consequence, environmental value is increased; furthermore, the condition and productivity of successive plants and entire rotations is improved [58]. Moreover, plants grown as cover crops bind an additional amount of carbon dioxide in their phytomass [44,59]. Soil covered with growing plants or mulch slows down the mineralization of organic matter, resulting in reduced CO 2 emissions into the atmosphere [60].…”

Fodder Grass Strips: An Affordable Technology for Sustainable Rainfed Agriculture in India

“…Rainfed farmers, the majority of whom are smallholders, use varied integrated production strategies to raise small ruminants primarily on grazing resources. As a riskaversion technique and to assure household food and financial security, farmers prefer to develop systems that serve their interests in diversity [29]. It would be very beneficial for rainfed farmers to have technology that can integrate annual food crop systems with support for their animals, minimal soil disturbance, a variety of crop species, continuous ground cover, support for small ruminants, nutrient supply through nitrogen fixation and nutrient cycling, improve soil structure and water infiltration, enhance organic matter in the soil surface, and promote biodiversity.…”

Агроекологічна Оцінка Енергопотенціалу Ґрунтів

“…Закордонні дослідження з енергетичної оцінки землеробства здебільшого висвітлюють окремі локальні теми з акцентом на аналіз питомих енергетичних витрат ресурсів, таких як паливо, електроенергія, добрива та ін., необхідних для виробництва визначеної кількості продукції рослинництва або тваринництва Manoj et al, 2022). Такі дослідження здебільшого характеризують обмежені часові інтервали, окремі культури та не враховують енергетичні втрати ґрунтів.…”