Livelihood and energy-carbon dynamics of livestock-based integrated farming system: Assessment and implications for sustainable farming

Challenges of climate-resilient agricultural production, along with environmental sustainability, guided the study on livestock-based integrated farming systems (LIFS) to explore their merits and implications for sustainable farming. Consequently, a 3-year life cycle assessment of a 3-ha LIFS with 30 adult cattle units and diversified components (45 % food crops, 33.8 % fodder, 17.5 % vegetables, 2.5 % flowers, 1.3 % fruits, and allied activities) was conducted to evaluate among its components and against the traditional groundnut-wheat cropping system (GWCS). The study assessed ecosystem services, including resource recycling, productivity, profitability, employment, and energy-carbon dynamics involving the life cycle assessment approach. Findings reveal that LIFS yielded 80,178 kg wheat equivalent ha−1 yr−1, US$8952 net returns, 4,55,368 MJ energy output, and 33,974 kg carbon output from inputs of 90,791 MJ energy and GHG emissions equivalent to 14,942 kg carbon. Compared to GWCS, LIFS achieved 8.4× higher productions, 6.4× greater returns, 6.6× more employment, 3.0× higher energy productivity, and 4.6× greater net carbon gain due to crop–livestock synergy with improved management. Among components, livestock dominated inputs (86 % cost, 66 % energy, 92 % carbon) and outputs (77 % production, 66 % returns, 59 % employment), thus playing a crucial role in production and environmental sustainability. However, horticultural crops showed higher unit productivity and returns. The carbon footprint of LIFS (0.69 kg CO2 eq.) was higher than GWCS but better than similar livestock + crop systems. Conclusively, LIFS enhances climate resilience and ecosystem services; however, optimizing livestock's energy-carbon use can further impart greater environmental sustainability, offering valuable insights for researchers and policymakers to focus on immediate adoption of LIFS for stable livelihood, along with setting the long-term goal for sustaining the energy-carbon use to evolve a ‘total sustainability’ of production systems in study region as well as similar agroecology worldwide.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Farming System
Published
2025-09-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2025.100183
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Livelihood and energy-carbon dynamics of livestock-based integrated farming system: Assessment and implications for sustainable farming

Manjanagouda S. Sannagoudar, Manju Suman, Khem Chand, Samir Barman et al.
Farming System
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
article

Livelihood and energy-carbon dynamics of livestock-based integrated farming system: Assessment and implications for sustainable farming

Manjanagouda S. Sannagoudar, Manju Suman, Khem Chand, Samir Barman, Dana Ram Palsaniya, Bishwa Bhaskar Choudhary, Gaurendra Gupta, Deepak Upadhyay, Mukesh Choudhary, S. K. Singh, R. K. Patel, Sadhna Pandey
article en

Abstract

Challenges of climate-resilient agricultural production, along with environmental sustainability, guided the study on livestock-based integrated farming systems (LIFS) to explore their merits and implications for sustainable farming. Consequently, a 3-year life cycle assessment of a 3-ha LIFS with 30 adult cattle units and diversified components (45 % food crops, 33.8 % fodder, 17.5 % vegetables, 2.5 % flowers, 1.3 % fruits, and allied activities) was conducted to evaluate among its components and against the traditional groundnut-wheat cropping system (GWCS). The study assessed ecosystem services, including resource recycling, productivity, profitability, employment, and energy-carbon dynamics involving the life cycle assessment approach. Findings reveal that LIFS yielded 80,178 kg wheat equivalent ha−1 yr−1, US$8952 net returns, 4,55,368 MJ energy output, and 33,974 kg carbon output from inputs of 90,791 MJ energy and GHG emissions equivalent to 14,942 kg carbon. Compared to GWCS, LIFS achieved 8.4× higher productions, 6.4× greater returns, 6.6× more employment, 3.0× higher energy productivity, and 4.6× greater net carbon gain due to crop–livestock synergy with improved management. Among components, livestock dominated inputs (86 % cost, 66 % energy, 92 % carbon) and outputs (77 % production, 66 % returns, 59 % employment), thus playing a crucial role in production and environmental sustainability. However, horticultural crops showed higher unit productivity and returns. The carbon footprint of LIFS (0.69 kg CO2 eq.) was higher than GWCS but better than similar livestock + crop systems. Conclusively, LIFS enhances climate resilience and ecosystem services; however, optimizing livestock's energy-carbon use can further impart greater environmental sustainability, offering valuable insights for researchers and policymakers to focus on immediate adoption of LIFS for stable livelihood, along with setting the long-term goal for sustaining the energy-carbon use to evolve a ‘total sustainability’ of production systems in study region as well as similar agroecology worldwide.

Farming SystemVol. 4(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.