Developing a robust and sustainable bioeconomy
on which society can rely will hinge on the long-term ability to source
sustainable biomass. Debates relating to sustainable sources of biomass and the
current uses of it have become common place in the press and within the
scientific community. The fate of crops in particular is widely discussed and some
critics argue that any crops grown for bioenergy or biofuel production displace
crops grown for what can be considered as more urgent or crucial purposes (i.e.
food and feed in the case of conventional cash crops, such as maize, cereals or
beet).
However valid this argument may be, it relies on
the assumption that land is used for growing crops for either food, feed, or
energy in any one season, which provides a valuable insight into the widespread
agricultural practices of today. Crop rotations and the practice of leaving
land fallow over the winter periods have become the norm, which if not done
effectively, can not only lead to soil degradation and nutrient depletion, but also
negates more efficient methods which could optimise yields and crops diversity.
In this article, we discuss a range of conventional
agricultural management practices and compare them with practices associated
with regenerative agriculture – such as sequential cropping. Benefits of
the latter within the bioeconomy context are assessed, including their
potential for the co-production of crops for food, feed and energy on the same
land without any displacement effects, along with a number other environmental,
economic and social advantages. Finally, we will discuss existing support
schemes designed to support farmers in their decision to adopt more sustainable
farming practices such as cover cropping via sequential cropping.
To read the full article, please click here.