Adopting soil organic carbon management practices in soils of varying quality : Implications and perspectives in Europe

Acknowledgements We wish to thank all participants to the SmartSOIL project for their inspiring inputs and debates and for having shared their valuable expertise, contributing to the success of this project. Furthermore, we are grateful to the financial support from the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (Call identifier: FP7-KBBE-2011-5; project number: 289694).Peer reviewedPostprin

Simulation of Soil Organic Carbon Effects on Long-Term Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Production Under Varying Fertilizer Inputs

Acknowledgments We appreciate the financial support from EC SMARTSOIL project (Project number: 289694) for funding the collation of long-term experimental data from the project partners and Mr. Per Abrahamsen for helping with the DAISY model. The support from LANDMARK (Grant Agreement No: 635201), WaterFARMING (Grant Agreement No: 689271), and SustainFARM (Grant Agreement No: 652615) projects are acknowledged to carry out revisions and improvement of the scientific content for resubmission of the manuscriptPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Circularity in animal production requires a change in the EAT-Lancet diet in Europe

It is not known whether dietary guidelines proposing a limited intake of animal protein are compatible with the adoption of circular food systems. Using a resource allocation model, we compared the effects of circularity on the supply of animal-source nutrients in Europe with the nutritional requirements of the EAT-Lancet reference diet. We found the two to be compatible in terms of total animal source proteins but not specific animal-source foods; in particular, the EAT-Lancet guidelines recommend larger quantities of poultry meat over beef and pork, while a circular food system produces mainly milk, dairy-beef and pork. Compared with the EAT-Lancet reference diet, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by up to 31% and arable land use reduced by up to 42%. Careful consideration of the feasible substitutability between animal-source foods is needed to define potential roles of animal products in circular human diets

Cereal yield gaps across Europe

peer-reviewedEurope accounts for around 20% of the global cereal production and is a net exporter of ca. 15% of that production. Increasing global demand for cereals justifies questions as to where and by how much Europe’s production can be increased to meet future global market demands, and how much additional nitrogen (N) crops would require. The latter is important as environmental concern and legislation are equally important as production aims in Europe. Here, we used a country-by-country, bottom-up approach to establish statistical estimates of actual grain yield, and compare these to modelled estimates of potential yields for either irrigated or rainfed conditions. In this way, we identified the yield gaps and the opportunities for increased cereal production for wheat, barley and maize, which represent 90% of the cereals grown in Europe. The combined mean annual yield gap of wheat, barley, maize was 239 Mt, or 42% of the yield potential. The national yield gaps ranged between 10 and 70%, with small gaps in many north-western European countries, and large gaps in eastern and south-western Europe. Yield gaps for rainfed and irrigated maize were consistently lower than those of wheat and barley. If the yield gaps of maize, wheat and barley would be reduced from 42% to 20% of potential yields, this would increase annual cereal production by 128 Mt (39%). Potential for higher cereal production exists predominantly in Eastern Europe, and half of Europe’s potential increase is located in Ukraine, Romania and Poland. Unlocking the identified potential for production growth requires a substantial increase of the crop N uptake of 4.8 Mt. Across Europe, the average N uptake gaps, to achieve 80% of the yield potential, were 87, 77 and 43 kg N ha−1 for wheat, barley and maize, respectively. Emphasis on increasing the N use efficiency is necessary to minimize the need for additional N inputs. Whether yield gap reduction is desirable and feasible is a matter of balancing Europe’s role in global food security, farm economic objectives and environmental targets.We received financial contributions from the strategic investment funds (IPOP) of Wageningen University & Research, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, MACSUR under EU FACCE-JPI which was funded through several national contributions, and TempAg (http://tempag.net/)

Options to improve the nitrogen use efficiency in the Dutch agriculture sector

The aim of this study is to quantify the N flows and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in Dutch agriculture and to assess options to improve this efficiency. Improvement options related to i) reduced mineral N fertilizer use, ii) reduced feed import and iii) reduced N emissions were identified and their impact was estimated for 2030 and 2040. Current NUE of the crop system is 58%, whereas in the NUE of the livestock system 30%. The results show that the improvement options could lead to N saving of 97 kton by 2030 and up to 209 kton N by 2040. This would increase the NUE of Dutch agriculture from 40% in 2020 to 52% in 2040. Most of the N savings can be obtained by measures that reduce the mineral N fertilizer use, of which the use of clover in grassland is the main option. These findings show that there is still large scope for improvement in NUE in Dutch agriculture, which will reduce the N emissions to the environment and improve nutrient cycling