Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Coupling the benefits of grassland crops and green biorefining to produce protein, materials and services for the green transition

      1 , 2 , 2 , 3 , 2 , 4
      Grass and Forage Science
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Compared with annual grain and seed crops, perennial grassland has significantly lower losses of nutrients and low pesticide requirements, whilst also supporting soil carbon build‐up. Until now grassland crops have almost exclusively been fed to ruminants and horses. Our experiments on biorefining forages have produced protein of a quality equal to soybean meal. Forage crops can deliver high yields of biomass as well as protein with a well‐balanced amino acid profile. In grass crops from unfertilised permanent grassland, focus has to be on the fibre part of the grass due to a low protein yield. With current techniques we have recovered up to 40% of the forage protein into a protein concentrate with around 50% protein. In addition, a fibre fraction containing 15%–18% protein of dry matter can be produced and used as ruminant feed, bioenergy, or further biorefined into chemical building blocks or bio‐materials. Our feeding experiments have shown that biorefined grassland protein can provide a substitute for soybean meal for poultry and pigs without negative effects on animal performance. The first industrial scale biorefineries on green biomass for feed and bioenergy are now established in Denmark, although more research is needed in order to evaluate protein quality for both feed and food applications. In addition, a full EFSA approval has to be obtained for the application for food. The green biorefinery concept opens new markets for grassland and opportunities for increasing the grassland area to obtain associated ecosystem services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          More productive than maize in the Midwest: How does Miscanthus do it?

          In the first side-by-side large-scale trials of these two C(4) crops in the U.S. Corn Belt, Miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus) was 59% more productive than grain maize (Zea mays). Total productivity is the product of the total solar radiation incident per unit land area and the efficiencies of light interception (epsilon(i)) and its conversion into aboveground biomass (epsilon(ca)). Averaged over two growing seasons, epsilon(ca) did not differ, but epsilon(i) was 61% higher for Miscanthus, which developed a leaf canopy earlier and maintained it later. The diurnal course of photosynthesis was measured on sunlit and shaded leaves of each species on 26 dates. The daily integral of leaf-level photosynthetic CO(2) uptake differed slightly when integrated across two growing seasons but was up to 60% higher in maize in mid-summer. The average leaf area of Miscanthus was double that of maize, with the result that calculated canopy photosynthesis was 44% higher in Miscanthus, corresponding closely to the biomass differences. To determine the basis of differences in mid-season leaf photosynthesis, light and CO(2) responses were analyzed to determine in vivo biochemical limitations. Maize had a higher maximum velocity of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylation, velocity of phosphoenolpyruvate regeneration, light saturated rate of photosynthesis, and higher maximum quantum efficiency of CO(2) assimilation. These biochemical differences, however, were more than offset by the larger leaf area and its longer duration in Miscanthus. The results indicate that the full potential of C(4) photosynthetic productivity is not achieved by modern temperate maize cultivars.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis

            Identifying agricultural practices that enhance water cycling is critical, particularly with increased rainfall variability and greater risks of droughts and floods. Soil infiltration rates offer useful insights to water cycling in farming systems because they affect both yields (through soil water availability) and other ecosystem outcomes (such as pollution and flooding from runoff). For example, conventional agricultural practices that leave soils bare and vulnerable to degradation are believed to limit the capacity of soils to quickly absorb and retain water needed for crop growth. Further, it is widely assumed that farming methods such as no-till and cover crops can improve infiltration rates. Despite interest in the impacts of agricultural practices on infiltration rates, this effect has not been systematically quantified across a range of practices. To evaluate how conventional practices affect infiltration rates relative to select alternative practices (no-till, cover crops, crop rotation, introducing perennials, crop and livestock systems), we performed a meta-analysis that included 89 studies with field trials comparing at least one such alternative practice to conventional management. We found that introducing perennials (grasses, agroforestry, managed forestry) or cover crops led to the largest increases in infiltration rates (mean responses of 59.2 ± 20.9% and 34.8 ± 7.7%, respectively). Also, although the overall effect of no-till was non-significant (5.7 ± 9.7%), the practice led to increases in wetter climates and when combined with residue retention. The effect of crop rotation on infiltration rate was non-significant (18.5 ± 13.2%), and studies evaluating impacts of grazing on croplands indicated that this practice reduced infiltration rates (-21.3 ± 14.9%). Findings suggest that practices promoting ground cover and continuous roots, both of which improve soil structure, were most effective at increasing infiltration rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Potential of extensification of European agriculture for a more sustainable food system, focusing on nitrogen

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Grass and Forage Science
                Grass and Forage Science
                Wiley
                0142-5242
                1365-2494
                December 2022
                December 2022
                December 2022
                : 77
                : 4
                : 295-306
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Agroecology Aarhus University Viborg Denmark
                [2 ] Aarhus University Centre for Circular Bioeconomy Aarhus University Viborg Denmark
                [3 ] Department of Animal‐ and Veterinary Sciences Aarhus University Viborg Denmark
                [4 ] Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark
                Article
                10.1111/gfs.12594
                dcbf3c6c-ee5f-4198-97c6-a91246226dcb
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content152

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors293