Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:54:56.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Circular agriculture practices enhance phosphorus recovery for large-scale commercial farms under tropical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2024

S. G. Moreira*
Affiliation:
ESAL, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Av. Doutor Silvio Menicucci 1001, CEP 37200-000, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
G. Hoogenboom
Affiliation:
Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
M. R. Nunes
Affiliation:
Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
P. A. Sanchez
Affiliation:
Global Food Systems Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA Soil, Water and Ecosystem Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Corresponding author: S. G. Moreira; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this research was to assess the adoption of circular agricultural practices as a tool to improve the recovery use efficiency of phosphorus (P) applied to tropical soils. Two Brazilian farms (1 and 2) that are under long-term no-till and cropped year-round with cover and/or cash crops were used in this study. Soybean, maize and common bean were grown during the summer season (October–February), followed by wheat, common bean and maize during the winter season (February–August). Brachiaria ruziziensis was intercropped with off-season maize. Farm 1 also grew sweet potatoes in rotation with grains. In the integrated crop–livestock system, the leftovers from the silos and crop residues were used to feed beef cattle, while the residues not used in the confinement were turned into compost and applied in the production fields. During the last 3 years, 80 (farm 1) and 71 (farm 2) kg/ha/year of P-fertilizer was applied to meet the demand of the different crops and 56% (farm 1) and 58% (farm 2) of P-fertilizer was exported through the crops and livestock. P-recovery represented more than 50% on both farms. Around 60% of the P consumed by animals was excreted in the form of faeces and urine and the animal manure was used to produce organic compost. Therefore, most of the P consumed by the livestock was returned back to the field to serve as organic fertilizer. This study showed that circular agricultural practices can enhance P-recovery.

Type
Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Over the past 50 years Brazil has changed from a food importer to one of the world's largest food producers due to an increase in agricultural efficiency. This change was based on new technologies for tropical agriculture that transformed the acidic and nutrient-poor tropical soils into the current built-up fertility areas with a high crop yield (Resende et al., Reference Resende, Fontoura, Borghi, Dos Santos, Kappes, Moreira, Oliveira Junior and Borin2016; Moreira, Reference Moreira2019). From 1976/77 to 2022/23, food production in Brazil increased by 700%, while the cultivated area only increased by 90% (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento – CONAB, 2023). If Brazil had maintained the yield rates of 1976/77, i.e. 1270 kg/ha, the current cultivated area would have been 246 million ha, instead of the current 78 million ha.

Even with all the gains in yield and production, there is still a need for change. Currently, many agricultural systems in the world have become very specialized with a low crop diversity that depends mainly on chemical inputs (Basso et al., Reference Basso, Jones, Antle, Martinez-Feria and Verma2021). Therefore, the circular agricultural approach was created to improve issues associated with the current agricultural practices (De Boer and Van Ittersum, Reference De Boer and Van Ittersum2018). The use of no-till (NT), crop rotation, maize intercropped with grasses, such as Brachiaria ruziziensis, cover crops to keep the soil covered all year round, use of inoculants for biological nitrogen fixation, as well as organic compost to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers are key circular practices to reduce the use of natural resources and promote the reuse and recycling of nutrients (Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021; Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023).

Most of the tropical soils found in Brazil are originally acidic, with low pH values (4.5–5.5), high aluminium contents and low fertility, including low contents of calcium, magnesium, P and potassium (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Volf and Rosolem, Reference Volf and Rosolem2021). P use efficiency in these highly weathered soils is low, primarily due to the P adsorption onto the surface of iron (Fe)- and aluminium (Al)-(hydr)oxide colloids (Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017; Matos et al., Reference Matos, Melo, Uchôa, Ribeiro Nascimento and Pereira2017; Nascimento et al., Reference Nascimento, Pagliari, Faria and Vitti2018; Vásconez and Pinochet, Reference Vásconez and Pinochet2018; Zavaschi et al., Reference Zavaschi, de Abreu Faria, Ferraz-Almeida, do Nascimento, Pavinato, Otto and Vitti2020). Under acidic conditions, the presence of Fe2+ and Al3+ ions in the soil solution favours the formation of iron and aluminium phosphates, thus leading to even lower plant-available P (Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019).

To meet the growing global food demand and to decrease the agricultural negative impact on the environment, e.g. biodiversity, ecosystem health and climate change, crop yield must increase without increasing the use of natural resources such as land, water and mineral fertilizers (Basso et al., Reference Basso, Jones, Antle, Martinez-Feria and Verma2021). The degraded pasturelands with a low nutrient rate in Brazil have been incorporated into the agricultural production areas, requiring the application of high doses of amendments, especially P-fertilizers. Nevertheless, P-fertilizer is finite (Withers et al., Reference Withers, Rodrigues, Soltangheisi, De Carvalho, Guilherme, Benites, Gatiboni, Sousa, Nunes, Rosolem, Andreote, Oliveira Júnior, Coutinho and Pavinato2018) and, according to the circular agriculture principles, its use must be minimized (Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021). Currently, soybean alone is being grown in Brazil at a rate of 1.5 million ha/year, which has caused a tremendous increase in the use of P-fertilizer (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento – CONAB, 2023).

Adopting soil and crop management practices such as NT combined with cropping system diversification contributes to the sustainability of production systems (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). However, currently, just about 50% of the total cropland in Brazil is being cultivated under NT (Moreira, Reference Moreira2019). This fact highlights an opportunity to improve the sustainable production system by improving the adoption of these practices. When NT is combined with other conservation practices, such as soil protection through cover crops and cash crops, as well as diversification of cropping systems with crop rotations, the agricultural system becomes more sustainable. For instance, NT can promote soil health by decreasing soil erosion and runoff, increasing soil nutrient cycling, biological activity, carbon and nutrient contents, microbial activity and the formation and preservation of stable soil aggregates, in addition to the retention and movement of water and air in the soil system (Nunes et al., Reference Nunes, van Es, Schindelbeck, Ristow and Ryan2018, Reference Nunes, Karlen, Veum, Moorman and Cambardella2020a; Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Kiehl, Prochnow, Pauletti, Martin-Neto and Resende2020).

The adoption of circular agriculture principles could promote crop yield and minimize the depletion of natural resources and, thus, avoid unnecessary losses (Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021). However, this hypothesis has never been tested under tropical conditions. The outcome of this study can serve as an example for other farmers in countries that have a high agricultural intensification, i.e. with two or three seasons in the same cropping year. The conditions of these two large farmers will provide us with the opportunity to validate the concept of circular agriculture for large-scale grain production in tropical environments. In this study, our main objective was to evaluate the efficiency of P recovery in production systems that adopt circular agricultural practices.

Materials and methods

Farm history and management

The two large commercial farms (3W Agronegócios [farm 1] and Santa Helena Farms [farm 2]) that were evaluated in this study have been described by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). Briefly, the farms are in Minas Gerais, Brazil, in Itutinga county 21°23′S; 44°39′W (farm 1) and Nazareno county 21°15′S; 44°31′W (farm 2). The main soils on both farms are oxisols and classified as Typic Hapludox in the US Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2014). The climate in the region is classified as Cwa (Köppen climatic classification). Thus, the winter is cold and dry, and the summer is hot and humid.

The two farms started their operations approximately two decades ago and have been expanding since then, incorporating areas previously under degraded pastures while adopting circular agricultural practices. Herein, degraded pastures are native or cultivated pastures that have suffered a sharp drop in carrying capacity, due to the reduction in biomass production. In Brazil, the poor yield of degraded pastures is due to inadequate soil management, overgrazing, insufficient control of weeds and pests and lack of fertilization (Feltran-Barbieri and Féres, Reference Feltran-Barbieri and Féres2021). Lack of adequate fertilization is the main factor in Brazilian conditions leading to degradation since the majority of the soils exhibit a high acidity and a limited nutrient content, particularly in terms of P (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016), and most pastures are planted without a soil fertility correction such as the application of limestone and P-fertilizer.

The total cropland of both farms is under NT and the cropping system is diversified. The soil is covered with mulch from both the cash and cover crops for the entire year, with maize intercropped with a tropical grass. As described by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023), since 2020 the farms have implemented an integrated crop–livestock system in beef cattle confinement using agricultural products and by-products that are produced on each farm. The study considered data collected during the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping years with two growing seasons per cropping year, i.e. summer season (October–February) and winter season (February–August).

The cultivated area of farm 1 was 1559 ha in 2018/19, 1675 ha in 2019/20 and 1848 ha in 2020/21 during the summer season, and 1299 ha in 2018/19, 1437 ha in 2019/20 and 1787 ha in 2020/21 during the winter season. The cultivated land in farm 2 was 903 ha in 2018/19, 1025 ha in 2019/20 and 1116 ha in 2020/21 in the summer season, and 739 ha in 2018/19, 1025 ha in 2019/20 and 1021 ha in 2020/21 in the winter season.

Soil management, crop yield and estimates of P uptake

Details of crop management and fertilizer practices during the 3 years were presented by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). During the first year, deep tillage was required to incorporate limestone and gypsum up to 0–0.40 m; during the remaining years the soil was managed under NT. In addition, millet (Pennisetum glaucum) was grown as a cover crop during the first year of cultivation prior to the first crop to protect the soil against erosion following incorporation of lime and gypsum. Millet was grown from September to December and was followed by common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), the first cash crop.

The procedures that were used for grain and sweet potato harvest, cleaning, drying, weighing and storage are provided in detail by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). The estimation of the dry matter (DM) yield (kg/ha) of crop residues produced in each of the production fields was based on the harvest index for each of the crops as published in the Brazilian literature (Table 1). P content of both the grain and residue was also sourced from the Brazilian literature, with a few exceptions. Analysis of the grain and residue intended for livestock feed was conducted at a regional laboratory, utilizing samples collected directly from each farm. The DM yield of the cover crops (millet, oat and B. ruziziensis), and the P content of DM were also estimated based on the average P concentration from the literature for Brazilian Cerrado conditions (Table 2).

Table 1. P content in DM (kg/t) of grains and residues and the harvest index according to the Brazilian literature

a Only ear silage (cob, grain and straw maize).

Table 2. Cover crop yield and P content in the DM for each crop under Brazilian Cerrado conditions

– data not provided by the author(s).

The average amount of P applied to each field (kg/ha/year) as P-fertilizer, crop residue or compost, as well as the average amount of P exported by crops and in the bodies of beef cattle (kg/ha/year) were calculated using the same procedures described by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023) for nitrogen. As the most of the crop root system is concentrated in the upper soil layers, total P mineralization of the organic phosphorus stock was estimated for the top 0.60 m soil for both farms. Organic P values were calculated using the average organic carbon content in each layer of the soil, i.e. 1.9% (0–0.20 m), 1.4% (0.20–0.40 m) and 1.2% (0.40–0.60 m) for farm 1, and 1.9% (0–0.20 m), 1.3% (0.20–0.40 m) and 0.9% (0.40–0.60 m) for farm 2. The C/P ratio was assumed to be 71.3, calculated for the 0–0.20 m soil depth based on Balota et al. (Reference Balota, Yada, Amaral, Nakatani, Dick and Coyne2014), and the averaged soil bulk density (1.2 kg/dm3) for oxisols in the same region of our study (Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Junior, Lima, Miranda and Silva2002).

The total quantities of organic phosphorus stock for both farms were the sum of the values obtained for the top three soil layers (0.0–0.20, 0.20–0.40 and 0.40–0.60 m). An average rate of 7.0% per year was used as the average mineralization value for the topsoil layer (Camargo et al., Reference Camargo, Gianello, Tedesco, Riboldi, Meurer and Bissani2002), considering soils under NT with constant inputs of mineralizable residues for the surface layer. Because there was no increase in soil organic matter (SOM) below the top 0.20 m of soil profile under NT (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Kiehl, Prochnow, Pauletti, Martin-Neto and Resende2020), only mineralized P from the 0–0.20 m layer was considered in the present study.

The P recovery from fertilizer is usually calculated by the difference in P uptake between the fertilized and unfertilized crop (control), divided by the P-fertilizer rate that was applied (Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). However, we could not calculate fertilizer P recovery using common procedures because there were no control plots. Instead, P recovery was calculated as the ratio between all P extracted by the crops and all P input for the soil:

(1)$${{\rm P\;recovery} = \displaystyle{{( {{\rm P\;Crop}} ) } \over {( {{\rm PFertilizer} + {\rm P\;Compost} + {\rm P\;Residue\;} + {\rm P\;SOM}} ) }}}\;$$

where P Crop is the average amount of P exported by crops (kg/ha/year) during the three cropping years; P Fertilizer is the average amount of P from all chemical fertilizers (kg/ha/year) applied during the three cropping years; P Compost is the average amount of P of the compost applied (kg/ha/year) during the three cropping years; P Residue is the average amount of P residue (kg/ha/year) produced during the three cropping years and P SOM is the average amount of mineralized P in the 0–0.20 m layer (kg/ha/year) during the three cropping years.

The amount of P (kg/ha/year) used in compost piles was estimated based on the difference between the sum of the total amount of P in the by-product and forage produced for feed minus the amount not used by the animals or stored.

Integration of agricultural production with animals in confinement

As described by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023), grain production was integrated into the beef cattle production system, in confinement in 2020, using animals of the Nellore breed (Bos indicus). During the first year, the integration started with only a few animals on both farms and the number of animals has slowly increased. For farm 1, the number of confined animals increased from 686 animals in the growing phase prior to the fattening confinement and 774 animals during the fattening phase in 2020 to 1214 animals in the growing phase and 1030 animals in the fattening phase in 2021. In 2020, farm 2 had 148 animals in the growing phase and 88 animals in the fattening phase and expanded to 492 animals in the growing phase and 509 animals in the fattening phase in 2021.

The diet of the animals in confinement was determined by nutritionist veterinarians and varied according to the group of animals. Therefore, the diet offered to growing animals was different from that of fattening animals (Table S1). During the confinement period, maize silage and snaplage (silage rich in starch in which only the ears and grains are ensiled), grains and silo leftovers, i.e. broken grains, leftover sweet potatoes, produced on the farms were used. However, other products were purchased in the marketplace, such as sorghum grain, soybean meal and cottonseed, dried distillers grain, among others when economically advantageous (Table S2). Part of the straw from wheat was also used to feed confined animals, as well for composting. Thus, only part of wheat residues returned to the cultivated soils. In turn, leftovers from animal feed, as well as straw from the pre-cleaning system of grain silos that were not used in animal feed, were added in the composting. Periodically, the manure from the confinement was gathered and transported to the compost piles to be combined with all by-products.

The amounts of P exported in the live weight of the animals during the average confinement period (85 days for farm 1 and 76 days for farm 2) were calculated according to the average P composition of the animals as determined by Valadares Filho et al. (Reference Valadares Filho, Silva, Gionbelli, Rotta, Marcondes, Chizzotti and Prados2016). The average amount of P exported in the live weight of the animals and the P input in the diet and P output via urine + faeces (kg/ha/year) were estimated by dividing the total amounts of P by the total cropland for the two cropping years (2019/20 and 2020/21) for farm 1 (3523 ha) and farm 2 (2141 ha). The total amount of P in excreta (faeces and urine) was estimated by subtracting the P ingested in the diets from the P exported in the animals' live weight.

Results

Phosphorus content in grains, residues, forages and live weight of animals

The total amount of P accumulated in the grain, forages and residues by crop, growing season and farm is presented in Tables 3 and 4. The agricultural practices, cultivated areas and crop yield are presented by Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). Thus, for this study, we focused on the P inputs and outputs in the system. This includes the amount of P consumed in the DM by the animals, exported during the confinement period and in the crop residues (Table 5). The animals from farms 1 and 2 ingested 2795 and 1376 t of DM, equivalent to 10.5 and 3.1 t of P, respectively (Table S2). In total, 4.4 t of P for farm 1 and 1.1 t of P for farm 2 were exported during the confinement period (Table 5).

Table 3. Cultivated area, forage, grain and sweet potato yield based on DM and the total amount of phosphorus accumulated in the grain, forages and residues by each crop grown during each growing season for farm 1

a Wheat straw harvest after wheat grain.

b Millet grown before summer season common bean (same fields).

c B. ruziziensis intercropped with maize (same fields).

Table 4. Cultivated area, forage, grain and sweet potato yield based on DM and the total amount of phosphorus accumulated in the grain, forages and residues by each crop grown during each growing season for farm 2

a Wheat straw harvest after wheat grain.

b Millet grown before summer season common bean (same fields).

c B. ruziziensis intercropped with maize (same fields).

d Oat for mulch in winter season.

Table 5. Number of animals in confinement per year for each animal category, i.e. growing and fattening phase, initial and final live weight, live weight gain per animal and total per farm and P exported by animals during the two years of confinement on farms 1 and 2

a Quantities of P exported in the animal's live weight during the confinement period on each farm, calculated based on the composition of the animals (Valadares Filho et al., Reference Valadares Filho, Silva, Gionbelli, Rotta, Marcondes, Chizzotti and Prados2016).

Soil P and organic P

During the three cropping years from 2018/19 to 2020/21, the P content based on Mehlich-1 averaged of all production fields increased from 3.5 to 5.4 for the 0–0.20 m soil depth, from 1 to 1.3 for the 0.20–0.40 m soil depth and from 0.5 to 1.9 mg/dm3 for the 0.40–0.60 m soil depth for farm 1. For farm 2, the P content for the 0–0.20 and 0.20–0.40 m soil depths ranged from 6.4 to 6.0 and 2.5 to 1.5 mg/dm3, respectively during the five cropping years from 2016/17 to 2020/21.

The total quantities of 1051 kg of organic phosphorus stock for farm 1 and 958 kg for farm 2 were the sum of the values obtained for the top three soil layers from 0.0 to 0.20 m (444 kg for both farms), from 0.20 to 0.40 m (327 for farm 1 and 304 kg for farm 2) and from 0.40 to 0.60 m (280 for farm 1 and 210 kg for farm 2) (Figs 1 and 2). Assuming an average SOM mineralization rate of 7% per year in the 0–0.20 m layer (Camargo et al., Reference Camargo, Gianello, Tedesco, Riboldi, Meurer and Bissani2002), nearly 31 kg/ha/year of P was mineralized per year for each farm (Figs 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Summary of average P inputs and outputs (kg/ha/year) in the production system of farm 1 based on the data obtained for the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping years and beef cattle production from 2020 to 2021. The stocking rate on the farm was 1 animal/ha.

Figure 2. Summary of average P inputs and outputs (kg/ha/year) in the production system of farm 2 based on data obtained for the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping years and beef cattle production from 2020 to 2021. The stocking rate on the farm was 0.6 animals/ha.

P inputs and outputs

About 405 t of P was applied on farm 1 and 215 t of P on farm 2 as P-fertilizers during the three years of this study (Tables 6 and 7) to meet the demand of the different crops. These values represent the average rates of 79.7 kg/ha/year for farm 1 and 70.7 kg/ha/year for farm 2 (Figs 1 and 2 and S1 and S2). About 219 t of P was exported by grains, sweet potatoes and animal bodies on farm 1. This number considers the 2.6 t of P from the grains consumed by the animals on farm 1 (Table S2) and the 4.4 t of P exported by the animals (Table 5). The total P extraction in DM on farm 1, including P from grains, forage and leftovers, was 10.5 t (Tables S4). Thus, 43.7 kg/ha/year of P in grains and sweet potatoes were exported, or 45.0 kg/ha/year when considering the amount exported by the animals (Figs 1 and S1).

Table 6. Phosphorus inputs and outputs in the grains, sweet potatoes, forage and straw to confinement for each growing season during the three cropping years for farm 1

a Wheat straw harvest after wheat grain.

b Based on the farm's data, 83% of sweet potatoes are as eligible for sale, while the remaining 17% is repurposed as animal feed and compost.

Table 7. Phosphorus inputs and outputs in the grains, forage and straw to confinement for each growing season during the three cropping years for farm 2

a Wheat straw harvest after wheat grain.

For farm 2, 125 t of P was exported as grains and by animals. About 126 t of P was exported by the grains initially (Table 7), but 1.9 t of P in the grains was consumed as animal feed (Table S2), and 1.1 t of P in the live animal weight was exported by the animals that were sold (Table 5). The total P consumption in DM for farm 1, including P from grains, forage and leftovers was 3.1 t (Table S4). Thus, on average, 41.3 kg/ha/year of P was exported (Figs 2 and S2).

Regarding the total amount of P in the residues of each crop, 86 t of P for farm 1 and 47 t of P for farm 2 were returned directly to the soil during the three years of the study (Tables 6 and 7). Nearly 10 t for farm 1 and 4 t of P for farm 2 were returned to the soil in 2021/22, which resulted in a total of 18.8 kg/ha/year for farm 1 and 16.9 kg/ha/year for farm 2 that was added to the soil (Figs 1 and 2 and S1 and S2).

Most of the animal feed used in the animals' diet was produced on both farms, while the remainder was purchased on the market when it was most economically advantageous. The food produced for animal feed on farm 1 had 11.5 t of P in its composition, part of which was in the form of maize silage (2.1 t), snaplage silage (1.3 t), leftover sweet potatoes (4.1 t) and wheat straw (4.0 t) (Table 6). Leftover and maize snaplage made available as forage (Table 6), 6 t of P (1.7 kg/ha/year) were consumed by the livestock on farm 1. When including the feed purchased from the market (Table S2), the total P intake on farm 1 amounted to 3 kg/ha/year (Fig. 1). Based on the records for farm 1, at the end of the study period there was currently 500 t of DM of wheat straw (0.9 t of P) and 496 t of DM of maize silage (0.8 t of P) stored on the farm, resulting in a total of 0.35 kg/ha/year stored as forage (Fig. 1).

The maize silage (0.5 t of P) and wheat straw (2.0 t of P) used for animal feed on farm 2 totalled 2.5 t of P in its composition (Table 7). In addition, it used broken grains and other grains that were ground for animal feed. Of the total forage and leftovers made available as forage (Table 7), 2.4 t of P (1.14 kg/ha/year) were used by the animals on farm 2 for a total of 1.5 kg/ha/year (Fig. 2) when considering the feed from the market that was provided to the animals (Table S2). The estimated amount of P excreted in faeces and urine was 6.1 t for farm 1 (1.7 kg/ha/year) and 2.0 t for farm 2 (0.9 kg/ha/year).

Using leftover grain silage, wheat straw and animal manure, farm 1 produced 5000 t of organic compost being equivalent to 7 t of P (1.4 kg/ha/year) and farm 2 produced 3360 t of organic compost (equivalent to 4.7 t of P or 1.4 kg/ha/year) to be applied in the production fields. The compost piles received 3.5 kg/ha/year on farm 1 and 1.9 kg/ha/year of P on farm 2, accounting for 1.7 kg/ha/year of P for farm 1 and 0.9 kg/ha/year of P for farm 2 from animal manure, and about 1.8 kg/ha/year of P for farm 1 and 1 kg/ha/year of P for farm 2 from leftovers not consumed by animals or stored.

P recovery efficiency

Phosphorus recovery for farms 1 and 2 was calculated according to Equation (1). For farm 1, P recovery was 50.3% and P recovery for farm 2 was almost the same as for farm 1, i.e. 50.5%. It should also be noted that farm 1 applied only 79.7 kg/ha/year as P-fertilizer and P extracted by crops was 65.8 kg/ha/year (Fig. 1). On the other hand, the P accumulated by crops in farm 2 was 60.7 kg/ha/year and 70.7 kg/ha/year was applied as P-fertilizer (Fig. 2).

Discussion

Soil phosphorus and organic phosphorus

Most of the total P in tropical soils, e.g. oxisols, is not available to plants due to the P adsorption on the surface of Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxides (Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019; Volf and Rosolem, Reference Volf and Rosolem2021), as well as losses due to precipitation of the orthophosphate ion (H2PO4) from P-fertilizer, with the Al3+ and Fe2+ ions present in acidic soils (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016). In fact, the initial pH (H2O) of soil prior to the study ranged from 4.9 to 5.2 and available P (Mehlich-1) was extremely low, ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 mg/dm3 (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). However, the P content (Mehlich-1) for the 0–0.20, 0.20–0.40 and 0.40–0.60 m soil layers increased in farm 1 after the three cropping years (2018/19 to 2020/21). Within the top layer, i.e. 0–0.20 m, where most of the root system is concentrated under NT (Nunes et al., Reference Nunes, Karlen, Denardin and Cambardella2019), the P content improved from very low, i.e. <4.0 mg/dm3 to low rates, i.e. 4.0–8.0 mg/dm3, according to the soil fertility interpretation classes in the region (Ribeiro et al., Reference Ribeiro, Guimarães and Venegas1999). In the surface soil layers of farm 2, the P content was classified as low (Ribeiro et al., Reference Ribeiro, Guimarães and Venegas1999).

Organic P is particularly important in NT systems, especially in the topsoil layers where the crop root systems predominate. The release of P from crop residues to the soil via organic matter mineralization is relatively fast compared to the release of organic N by microorganisms. More than half of the organic P in the soil consists of monoesters, in which P is bound to oxygen. This P–O bond can be easily broken by the phosphatase enzyme produced by plant roots, mycorrhizal fungi and other microorganisms (Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). The amount of P mineralized in both farms (31 kg/ha/year) and subsequently uptake by plants corresponded to nearly 73% for farm 1 and 76% for farm 2 of all P exported to the market (Figs 1 and 2).

Flow of P added to the soil

The annual average fertilization rate of 79.7 kg/ha/year for farm 1 and 70.7 kg/ha/year for farm 2 (Figs 1 and 2 and S1 and S2) is high if the demand for only one crop per year is considered. The P dose recommended for soybean, maize and common bean in this region is 52, 52 and 48 kg/ha, respectively, for soils that have a low nutrient availability (Ribeiro et al., Reference Ribeiro, Guimarães and Venegas1999). However, two aspects must be considered. Firstly, the P amount used per year was meant to supply P for two crops per year since the cultivated area is virtually the same for both the summer and winter seasons (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023). Secondly, most of the rates for soil P for these two farms are still below the proper rates, according to Ribeiro et al. (Reference Ribeiro, Guimarães and Venegas1999). Thus, one should consider the application of the nutrient to meet the nutritional requirements of the crops, and an additional amount to supply part of the P that is adsorbed to Fe- and Al-(hydr) oxides (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016).

For soils from the Brazilian savanna with low P content, it is recommended to apply an extra P dose (1.3–2.2 kg of P for each 1% increment of clay), regardless of the P-fertilizer rate that is applied (Sousa and Lobato, Reference Sousa and Lobato2004a; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016). The amount of P normally applied is usually high, and the application is made prior to the beginning of the cultivation of the fields, that is, when an area of degraded pasture with low rates of P is transformed into an area of grain cultivation. The extra application of P above the amount that is extracted by the crops is done with the intention of leaving part of the P in the soil, in order to occupy the P adsorption sites on the surface of Fe and Al oxides and to increase the P available to plants during cultivation (Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019; Volf and Rosolem, Reference Volf and Rosolem2021).

The average amount of P that was returned to the system as residue was 18.8 kg/ha/year for farm 1 and 16.9 kg/ha/year for farm 2, suggesting that 28.6% of the total P extracted by the crops for farm 1 and 27.6% for farm 2 is returned to the soil. These results are in line with previous studies that showed that from the total amount of P extracted by crops, 28–31% for maize is returned to the soil as crop residue (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Resende, Gutiérrez, Moreira, Borghi and Almeida2018), 29% for soybean (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – EMBRAPA, 2020), 34–19% for common bean (Silva and Moreira, Reference Silva and Moreira2022) and 18% for wheat (Pauletti and Motta, Reference Pauletti and Motta2019). The amount of P that is returned to the soil is lower than that exported by grains, but it is significant in absolute terms.

Using P from residues, compost or manure can minimize P depletion at is a non-renewable resource (Aznar-Sánchez et al., Reference Aznar-Sánchez, Velasco-Muñoz, García-Arca and López-Felices2020; Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021). The amount of P in the residue is usually low ranging from 0.1 to 0.2%, and insufficient to meet crop demand (Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). However, the available P sources are finite (Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017) and the reuse of any P-containing residue of by-product is crucial. In fact, this is a relevant circular agriculture premise meant to minimize the depletion of non-renewable resources, encourage regenerative practices, avoid the loss of natural resources and promote the reuse and recycling of by-products (Aznar-Sánchez et al., Reference Aznar-Sánchez, Velasco-Muñoz, García-Arca and López-Felices2020; Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021). The demand for P-fertilizers is constantly increasing, reflecting the growing demand for food, feed and fibre that follows the population growth (Fróna et al., Reference Fróna, Szenderák and Harangi-Rákos2019; Oberle et al., Reference Oberle, Bringezu, Hatfield-Dodds, Hellweg, Schandl and Clement2019). Due to the high cost of fertilizers and the fact that phosphate rocks, i.e. a source for P-fertilizers, are a finite natural resource, increasing the use efficiency of P-fertilizers in agricultural systems is critical (Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017).

The amount of P in the animal manure from farm 1 (1.7 kg/ha/year) and farm 2 (0.9 kg/ha/year) (Figs 1 and 2) were added to the other residues in the compost piles, yielding nearly 1.4 kg/ha/year of P for farm 1 and 1.5 kg/ha/year of P for farm 2 in the organic compost form. This indicates that there are P losses from the manure on farm 1, possibly due to surface runoff during composting, and suggests that the composting process without cover, i.e. bare ground, needs to be improved. In addition, it is important to increase the amount of compost produced, which can be done by increasing the number of animals on a farm.

Flow of P to grains and tubers, animals and market

About 43.7 kg/ha/year of P was exported in the grains and sweet potatoes on farm 1 or 45.0 kg/ha/ year, when also considering the amount exported by the animals (Figs 1 and S1). As for farm 2, around 40.8 kg/ha/year was exported in the grains, and only 0.5 kg/ha/year of P was exported by the animals (Figs 2 and S2). The low amount of P exported by the animals reflected the low number of animals on both farms, i.e. 1 animal/ha for farm 1 and 0.6 animals/ha for farm 2, and that most of the P ingested by animals is excreted in faeces and urine.

Most of the P extracted by the crops was exported in the form of grain that was sold on the market because the vast majority of P uptake by the plants is directed to the grains (Borges et al., Reference Borges, Teixeira, Brandão, Franco, Kondo and Morato2018; Silva et al., Reference Silva, Resende, Gutiérrez, Moreira, Borghi and Almeida2018; Pauletti and Motta, Reference Pauletti and Motta2019; Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – EMBRAPA, 2020; Silva and Moreira, Reference Silva and Moreira2022), while the remainder of the extracted P was returned to the soil as residues (Tables 6 and 7) or was used for animal feed (Table 5), compost production or stored as forage (Figs 1 and 2).

With respect to the amount of P ingested by the animals (Table S2), 42% for farm 1 and 37% for farm 2 was exported in the live weight of the animal (Table 5) and nearly 60% was excreted by the animals as faeces and urine. The amounts of P excreted per animal varied according to the amount of P ingested in the diet (Vasconcelos et al., Reference Vasconcelos, Tedeschi, Fox, Galyean and Greene2007; Geisert et al., Reference Geisert, Erickson, Klopfenstein, Macken, Luebbe and MacDonald2010; Bernier et al., Reference Bernier, Undi, Ominski, Donohoe, Tenuta, Flaten and Wittenberg2014). Usually, the amount of P supplied exceeds the demand of the animals (Vasconcelos et al., Reference Vasconcelos, Tedeschi, Fox, Galyean and Greene2007). Past studies have reported that the amount of P excreted can range from 11.5 to 24.3 g/day (Geisert et al., Reference Geisert, Erickson, Klopfenstein, Macken, Luebbe and MacDonald2010) and from 9.7 to 27.9 g/day (Bernier et al., Reference Bernier, Undi, Ominski, Donohoe, Tenuta, Flaten and Wittenberg2014), increasing as P in the diet increases.

Major environmental concerns with the application of animal manure and P-rich waste rely on the contamination and potential eutrophication of water bodies (Vasconcelos et al., Reference Vasconcelos, Tedeschi, Fox, Galyean and Greene2007; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019; Basso et al., Reference Basso, Jones, Antle, Martinez-Feria and Verma2021). However, there is around 100 million ha of degraded pastureland in Brazil (Dias Filho, Reference Dias Filho2014). The soil in these areas has a low P content and a high P adsorption capacity (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016). It has been estimated that only 1.5% of the total amount of phosphate fertilizers used in Brazil is destined for pasture areas (Withers et al., Reference Withers, Rodrigues, Soltangheisi, De Carvalho, Guilherme, Benites, Gatiboni, Sousa, Nunes, Rosolem, Andreote, Oliveira Júnior, Coutinho and Pavinato2018) although the area under pasture is three times greater than the area used for agriculture. These areas with inadequate soil management, overgrazing, insufficient weed and pest control and lack of fertilization (Feltran-Barbieri and Féres, Reference Feltran-Barbieri and Féres2021) have a low carrying capacity, i.e. 1 animal unit/ha, especially due to low biomass production. Consequently, these areas need to be recovered, with an increase in their animal support capacity or even to contribute to an increase in the grain production area, resulting in an increase in yield and thus avoiding deforestation. Thus, integrating agriculture and livestock can be a great opportunity to recover these areas and to contribute to an increase in food production worldwide, with no need to convert native areas into cropland. Furthermore, most soils in tropical regions, especially oxisols, are deep with high a Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxide content (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019; Volf and Rosolem, Reference Volf and Rosolem2021), which leads to a high P adsorption in these soils (Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017), with little possibility of contamination of water bodies by P.

Flow of phosphorus fertilizer recovered and P losses in the soil

The P recovery from both farms was larger than 50%, although it is widely recognized that the recovery of P applied in weathered, acidic soils, rich in Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxides is low (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Santos et al., Reference Santos, de Oliveira, Souza, Salcedo and Silva2016; Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017; Matos et al., Reference Matos, Melo, Uchôa, Ribeiro Nascimento and Pereira2017; Nascimento et al., Reference Nascimento, Pagliari, Faria and Vitti2018; Vásconez and Pinochet, Reference Vásconez and Pinochet2018; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019; Zavaschi et al., Reference Zavaschi, de Abreu Faria, Ferraz-Almeida, do Nascimento, Pavinato, Otto and Vitti2020). The recovery of P applied in weathered soils, rich in Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxides is usually low, primarily due to nutrient losses by adsorption into the surface of these colloids (Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017; Matos et al., Reference Matos, Melo, Uchôa, Ribeiro Nascimento and Pereira2017; Nascimento et al., Reference Nascimento, Pagliari, Faria and Vitti2018; Vásconez and Pinochet, Reference Vásconez and Pinochet2018; Zavaschi et al., Reference Zavaschi, de Abreu Faria, Ferraz-Almeida, do Nascimento, Pavinato, Otto and Vitti2020). Under acidic conditions, the presence of Fe2+ and Al3+ ions in the soil solution may lead to the formation of precipitates, such as iron and aluminium phosphates, thus enhancing P losses (Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014; Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). Furthermore, the P content of most of these soils is naturally low (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Volf and Rosolem, Reference Volf and Rosolem2021).

The soils in farms 1 and 2 are oxisols, on which most of the applied P can be turned into P forms not readily available to plants, mainly due to the strong bonds of P from fertilizer with the surface of Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxides (Lopes and Guilherme, Reference Lopes and Guilherme2016; Santos et al., Reference Santos, de Oliveira, Souza, Salcedo and Silva2016; Heuer et al., Reference Heuer, Gaxiola, Schilling, Herrera-Estrella, López-Arredondo, Wissuwa and Rouached2017; Matos et al., Reference Matos, Melo, Uchôa, Ribeiro Nascimento and Pereira2017). Gonçalves et al. (Reference Gonçalves, Novais, Barros, Neves and Ribeiro1989) observed that 79–95% of the P applied in Brazilian oxisols turned into non-labile P after 300 days of application. Santos et al. (Reference Santos, de Oliveira, Souza, Salcedo and Silva2016) observed that only 26% of the total P that was applied were recovered from an ultisol after 300 days using the Mehlich-1 extractor. Due to the losses of applied P in the soil through adsorption reactions into Fe- and Al-(hydr)oxides and precipitation of the orthophosphate anion with Fe2+ and Al3+ ions, the use efficiency of P-fertilizers is always less than 40% (Marschner, Reference Marschner2012). Less than 20% of P-fertilizers are usually recovered during the first crop, and less than 36% are recovered during the first two crops (Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). According to Syers et al. (Reference Syers, Johnston and Curtin2008), plants use only 10–25% of the P-fertilizer. The P recovery also depends on the amount of P that is applied. After 13 years of application in Brazilian clayey oxisols, 61% of the applied P was recovered when the applied dose was 70 kg/ha of P, decreasing to 35% when the dose was 560 kg/ha of P (Sousa and Lobato, Reference Sousa, Lobato, Yamada and Abdalla2004b).

The efficiency of P use in the study farms can also be observed by the high percentage recovered in grains and the body of the animals. In farm 1, 56% (45.0 kg/ha/year of P) of the total P-Fertilizer (79.7 kg/ha/year) applied was exported in grains and animal body. In farm 2, 58% of the amount of P applied as fertilizer was exported in grains and body of the animals. The higher efficiency of P recovery in both farms can be linked to the adoption of circular agricultural practices. In the long term, a reduction in P losses through adsorption in the soils of both farms is expected, as the absence of disturbance of soils cultivated under NT reduces the contact of fertilizer P with soil colloids (Pavinato et al., Reference Pavinato, Dao and Rosolem2010; Tiecher et al., Reference Tiecher, Santos, Kaminski and Calegari2012; Urrutia et al., Reference Urrutia, Erro, Guardado, San Francisco, Mandado, Baigorri, Claude and Garcia-Mina2014). An accumulation of SOM over the years is also expected, mainly in the surface layers of the soil (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Kiehl, Prochnow, Pauletti, Martin-Neto and Resende2020). This can also reduce P losses through adsorption (Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Pavinato, Withers, Teles and Herrera2016; Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Kiehl, Prochnow, Pauletti, Martin-Neto and Resende2020). When SOM increases, organic radicals in the soil also increase, such as carboxylic groups, which compete with orthophosphate anions for the same adsorption sites (Cessa et al., Reference Cessa, Vitorino, Celi, Novelino and Varveris2010). Moreira et al. (Reference Moreira, Kiehl, Prochnow, Pauletti, Martin-Neto and Resende2020) observed that the P content in soil cultivated for 12 years under NT practically doubled compared to cultivated soil that was prepared conventionally. However, during the first three agricultural years of the current study, SOM on both farms did not show a significant increase (Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023), remaining around 3.2% in 2021. Finally, long-term NT system can reduce soil erosion and runoff, which can also decrease soil nutrient losses including P.

Soil management practices on farms 1 and 2, including cultivation under NT, crop rotation, maize of second season intercropped with grasses and use of cover crops, will contribute over the long term to an increase in SOM rates and to a greater recovery of the amount of P that is applied compared to other studies (Sousa and Lobato, Reference Sousa, Lobato, Yamada and Abdalla2004b; Syers et al., Reference Syers, Johnston and Curtin2008; Marschner, Reference Marschner2012, Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019). Nunes et al. (Reference Nunes, de Sousa, Goedert, de Oliveira, Pavinato and Pinheiro2020b) showed that P recovery in oxisol is greater under long-term (21 years) NT compared to intensive tillage, which was linked to the higher accumulation of more labile P forms under NT. In contrast, under intensive tillage, they found that 28% of the applied P was not available to plants. In addition, plants grown under NT exported 21% more P in grains than those under intensive tillage.

Finally, it should be noted that the NT associated with crop rotation, cover crops and maize intercropped with Brachiaria is of paramount importance to producing straw to maintain the soil covered throughout the year. This cropping system decreases problems arising from weeds, pests and diseases and increases nutrient (re)cycling (Moreira, Reference Moreira2019), including P. When comparing P use efficiency (>50%) observed on the two farms with literature data obtained from experiments with a linear agricultural practice (Marschner, Reference Marschner2012; Sanchez, Reference Sanchez2019) the effect of circular practices on increasing the P recovery is clearly visible. However, it is worth mentioning that this study was conducted on two large commercial farms without any control plots and, thus, no statistical analysis of the data. However, conducting this study under real conditions on commercial farms that adopt circular practice provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate that these practices work. Thus, they will be able to contribute in the future to reducing the use of natural resources and promoting the reuse and recycling of nutrients (Basso et al., Reference Basso, Jones, Antle, Martinez-Feria and Verma2021, Muscat et al., Reference Muscat, de Olde, Ripoll-Bosch, Van Zanten, Metze, Termeer, Van Ittersum and de Boer2021; Moreira et al., Reference Moreira, Hoogenboom, Nunes, Martin-Ryals and Sanchez2023).

Conclusion

The P recovery represented more than 50% on both farms. These values are much higher than those found in the literature. The improved P recovery was due to the use of circular agricultural practices on both farms that included combined livestock and copping systems with crop rotation, maize intercropped with Brachiaria and NT soil management. The amount of P applied as fertilizer on farm 1 was 80 kg/ha/year and on farm 2 was 71 kg/ha/year; 56% was exported on farm 1 and 58% on farm 2 in the grains and body of animals. The amount of P that was exported by the animals corresponded to 1.2–2% of the total P exported. This amount was relatively small primarily because the farms still confine a relatively few numbers of animals compared to their large production areas. As most of the P ingested by animals is excreted, an increase in the number of animals on both farms will contribute to an increase in manure production and, consequently, to a greater production of organic compost for the crop production fields.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859624000042.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to Evandro Ferreira and his partners, the owners of Santa Helena Farm, as well as Wilian Pedro Franco and his partners, the owners of 3W Agronegócio Farm, for providing access to all the farm data. The authors specially acknowledge the farm veterinarian Geraldo Barcelos for supplying the animal diet data and collaborating with data interpretation, and the agronomists Otávio Lopes Vieira Campos and Laura Pereira Reis for providing additional data from farm records. The authors also acknowledge Dr Marcos Inácio Marcondes from Washington State University for sharing beef cattle mineral composition data. The first author acknowledges the fellowship received from the PrInt-Capes Program from Brazil (Process number 88887.587838/2020-00) and expresses high gratitude to Dr Pedro Antonio Sanchez and Dr Gerrit Hoogenboom for hosting him as a visiting scholar at the Global Food Systems Institute at the University of Florida.

Author contributions

S. G. Moreira: resources, formal analysis, methodology, investigation, writing – original draft, funding acquisition, review and editing; G. Hoogenboom: conceptualization, writing – review and editing; visualization; supervision; M. R. Nunes: methodology, validation, writing – review and editing; P. A. Sanchez: methodology, validation, conceptualization.

Competing interest

None.

References

Aznar-Sánchez, JA, Velasco-Muñoz, JF, García-Arca, D and López-Felices, B (2020) Identification of opportunities for applying the circular economy to intensive agriculture in Almería (south-east Spain). Agronomy 10, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, EL, Yada, IF, Amaral, H, Nakatani, AS, Dick, RP and Coyne, MS (2014) Long-term land use influences soil microbial biomass P and S, phosphatase and arylsulfatase activities, and S mineralization in a Brazilian oxisol. Land Degradation & Development 25, 397406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, B, Jones, JW, Antle, J, Martinez-Feria, RA and Verma, B (2021) Enabling circularity in grain production systems with novel technologies. Agricultural Systems 193, 103244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernier, JN, Undi, M, Ominski, KH, Donohoe, G, Tenuta, M, Flaten, D and Wittenberg, KM (2014) Nitrogen and phosphorus utilization and excretion by beef cows fed a low-quality forage diet supplemented with dried distillers grains with soluble under thermal neutral and prolonged cold conditions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 193, 920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borges, ID, Teixeira, EC, Brandão, LM, Franco, AAN, Kondo, MK and Morato, JB (2018) Macronutrients absorption and dry matter accumulation in grain sorghum. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 17, 1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressan, SB, Nóbrega, JCA, Nóbrega, RSA, Barbosa, RS and Sousa, LB (2013) Plantas de cobertura e qualidade química de Latossolo Amarelo sob plantio direto no cerrado maranhense. Revista Brasileira Engenheira Agrícola Ambiental 17, 371378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camargo, R and Piza, RJ (2007) Produção de biomassa de plantas de cobertura e efeitos na cultura do milho sob sistema plantio direto no município de Passos, MG. Bioscience Journal 23, 7680.Google Scholar
Camargo, FADO, Gianello, C, Tedesco, MJ, Riboldi, J, Meurer, EJ and Bissani, CA (2002) Empirical models to predict soil nitrogen mineralization. Ciência Rural 32, 393399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, AM, Coser, TR, Rein, TA, Dantas, RA, Silva, RR and Souza, KW (2015) Manejo de plantas de cobertura na floração e na maturação fisiológica e seu efeito na produtividade do milho. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50, 551561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, GF, Silva, CGM, Moreira, SG and Resende, AV (2017) Cover crops in succession to corn for silage in Cerrado conditions. Journal of Bioenergy and Food Science 4, 3749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cessa, RM, Vitorino, ACT, Celi, L, Novelino, JO and Varveris, E (2010) Adsorção de fósforo em frações argila na presença de ácido fúlvico. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 34, 1525–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento – CONAB (2023) Portal de informações Agropecuárias. Observatório Agrícola, Safra Grãos. Available at https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro.Google Scholar
Correia, NM, Leite, MB and Fuzita, WE (2013) Consórcio de milho com intercropping of corn and Urochloa ruziziensis and the effect of this system of production in the soybean crop in rotation. Bioscience Journal 29, 6576.Google Scholar
De Boer, IJM and Van Ittersum, MK (2018) Circularity in Agricultural Production. Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research.Google Scholar
Dias Filho, MB (2014) Diagnóstico das Pastagens no Brasil. Belém, Pará, Brazil: Embrapa Amazônia Oriental.Google Scholar
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária – EMBRAPA (2020) Tecnologias de produção de soja – Região Central do Brasil. Londrina, Paraná, Brazil: Embrapa Soja.Google Scholar
Feltran-Barbieri, R and Féres, JG (2021) Degraded pastures in Brazil: improving livestock production and forest restoration. Royal Society Open Science 8, 201854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fróna, D, Szenderák, J and Harangi-Rákos, M (2019) The challenge of feeding the world. Sustainability 11, 5816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisert, BG, Erickson, GE, Klopfenstein, TJ, Macken, CN, Luebbe, MK and MacDonald, JC (2010) Phosphorus requirement and excretion of finishing beef cattle fed different concentrations of phosphorus. Journal of Animal Science 88, 23932402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonçalves, CN and Ceretta, CA (1999) Plantas de cobertura do solo antecedendo o milho e seu efeito sobre o carbono orgânico do solo, sob plantio direto. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 23, 304313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, JLM, Novais, RF, Barros, NF, Neves, JCL and Ribeiro, AC (1989) Cinética da transformação de fósforo-lábil em não-lábil, em solos de cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 13, 1324.Google Scholar
Guimarães, GL (2000) Efeitos de culturas de inverno e do pousio na rotação de culturas de soja e do milho em sistema de plantio direto (Masters dissertation). Master's Course in Plant Production, Universidade Estadual Paulista, “Júlio Mesquita Filho”, Faculdade de Engenharia, Ilha Solteira, SP, Brazil.Google Scholar
Heuer, S, Gaxiola, R, Schilling, R, Herrera-Estrella, L, López-Arredondo, D, Wissuwa, M and Rouached, H (2017) Improving phosphorus use efficiency: a complex trait with emerging opportunities. The Plant Journal 90, 868885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leite, LFC, Freitas, RCA, Sagrilo, E and Galvão, SRS (2010) Decomposition and nutrients release from crop residues placed on a yellow latosol in the savanna of the Maranhão state. Revista Ciência Agronômica 41, 2935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, AS and Guilherme, LRG (2016) A career perspective on soil management in the Cerrado region of Brazil. Advances in Agronomy 137, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschner, H (2012) Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Matos, CHL, Melo, VF, Uchôa, SCP, Ribeiro Nascimento, PPR and Pereira, RA (2017) Phosphorus adsorption in soils under forest and savanna from northern Amazon, Brazil. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 38, 29092920.Google Scholar
Moreira, SG (2019) Desafios para a sustentabilidade dos sistemas de produção com culturas anuais. Informações Agronômicas 4, 112.Google Scholar
Moreira, SG, Lupp, RM, Lima, CG, Marucci, RC, Resende, AV and Borges, ID (2014) Massa seca e macronutrientes acumulados em plantas de milho cultivadas sob diferentes espécies de cobertura. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 13, 218231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, SG, Kiehl, JDC, Prochnow, LI, Pauletti, V, Martin-Neto, L and Resende, AVD (2020) Soybean macronutrient availability and yield as affected by tillage system. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 42, e42973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, SG, Hoogenboom, G, Nunes, MR, Martin-Ryals, AD and Sanchez, PA (2023) Circular agriculture increases food production and can reduce N fertilizer use of commercial farms for tropical environments. Science of the Total Environment 879, 163031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muscat, A, de Olde, EM, Ripoll-Bosch, R, Van Zanten, HH, Metze, TA, Termeer, CJ, Van Ittersum, MK and de Boer, IJ (2021) Principles, drivers and opportunities of a circular bioeconomy. Nature Food 2, 561566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nascimento, CAC, Pagliari, PH, Faria, LA and Vitti, GC (2018) Phosphorus mobility and behavior in soils treated with calcium, ammonium, and magnesium phosphates. Soil Science Society of America Journal 82, 622631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, MR, van Es, HM, Schindelbeck, RR, Ristow, AJ and Ryan, M (2018) No-till and cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield. Geoderma 328, 3043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, MR, Karlen, DL, Denardin, JE and Cambardella, CA (2019) Corn root and soil health indicator response to no-till production practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 285, 106607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, MR, Karlen, DL, Veum, KS, Moorman, TB and Cambardella, CA (2020 a) Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: a US meta-analysis. Geoderma 369, 114335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, RDS, de Sousa, DMG, Goedert, WJ, de Oliveira, LEZ, Pavinato, PS and Pinheiro, TD (2020 b) Distribution of soil phosphorus fractions as a function of long-term soil tillage and phosphate fertilization management. Frontiers in Earth Science 8, 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberle, B, Bringezu, S, Hatfield-Dodds, S, Hellweg, S, Schandl, H and Clement, J (2019) Global Resources Outlook 2019: Natural Resources for the Future We Want. International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
Pacheco, LP, Leandro, WM, Machado, PLOA, Assis, RL, Cobucci, T, Madari, BE and Petter, FA (2011) Produção de fitomassa e acúmulo e liberação de nutrientes por plantas de cobertura na safrinha. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 46, 1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, LP, Barbosa, JM, Leandro, WM, Machado, PLO, Assis, RL, Madari, BE and Petter, FA (2013 a) Ciclagem de nutrientes por plantas de cobertura e produtividade de soja e arroz em plantio direto. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 48, 12281236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, LP, Monteiro, MMS, Silva, RF, Soares, LS, Fonseca, WL, Nóbrega, JC, Petter, FA, Alcântara-Neto, F and Osajima, JA (2013b) Produção de fitomassa e acúmulo de nutrientes por plantas de cobertura no cerrado piauiense. Bragantia 72, 237246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, LP, Monteiro, MMS, Petter, FA, Nóbrega, JCA and Santos, AS (2017) Biomass and nutrient cycling by cover crops in Brazilian cerrado in the state of Piaui. Revista Caatinga 30, 1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pariz, CM, Andreotti, M, Azenha, MV, Bergamaschine, AF, Mello, LMM and Lima, RC (2011) Corn grain yield and dry mass of Brachiaria intercrops in the crop–livestock integration system. Ciência Rural 41, 875882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauletti, V and Motta, ACV (2019) Manual de Adubação e Calagem para o Estado do Paraná. Curitiba, Brazil: Editora Cubo.Google Scholar
Pavinato, PS, Dao, TH and Rosolem, CA (2010) Tillage and phosphorus management effects on enzyme-labile bioactive phosphorus availability in Cerrado oxisols. Geoderma 156, 207215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierri, L, Pauletti, V, Silva, DA, Scheraiber, CF, Souza, JLM and Munaro, FC (2016) Seasonality and potential of energy production from agricultural residual biomass in Campos Gerais, Paraná state. Revista Ceres 63, 129137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resende, AV, Fontoura, SMV, Borghi, E, Dos Santos, FC, Kappes, C, Moreira, SG, Oliveira Junior, A and Borin, ALDC (2016) Solos de fertilidade construída: características, funcionamento e manejo. Informações Agronômicas, 156, 119.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, AC, Guimarães, PTG and Venegas, VHA (1999) Recomendações para uso de corretivos e fertilizantes em Minas Gerais. Viçosa, Brazil: CFSEMG.Google Scholar
Richart, A, Paslauski, T, Nozaki, MH, Rodrigues, CM and Fey, R (2010) Desempenho do milho safrinha e da Brachiaria ruziziensis cv comum em consórcio. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias 5, 497502.Google Scholar
Rocha, WW, Junior, D, Lima, JM, Miranda, EEV and Silva, AR (2002) Resistência ao cisalhamento e grau de intemperismo de cinco solos na região de Lavras (MG). Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 26, 297303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, M, Pavinato, PS, Withers, PJ, Teles, APB and Herrera, WFB (2016) Legacy phosphorus and no tillage agriculture in tropical oxisols of the Brazilian savanna. Science of the Total Environment 542, 10501061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salume, JA, Oliveira, RA, Sete, PB, Comin, JJ, Ciotta, MN, Lourenzi, CR, Soares, CRFS, Loss, A, Carranca, C, Giacomini, SJ, Boitt, G and Brunetto, G (2020) Decomposition and nutrient release from cover crop residues under a pear orchard. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias 43, 7281.Google Scholar
Sanchez, PA (2019) Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, HC, de Oliveira, FH, Souza, APD, Salcedo, IH and Silva, VD (2016) Phosphorus availability as a function of its time of contact with different soils. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental 20, 9961001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, CGM and Moreira, SG (2022) Nutritional demand and nutrient export by modern cultivars of common bean. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 57, e02248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, EC, Muraoka, T, Franzini, VI, Sakadevan, K, Buzetti, S, Arf, O, Bendassolli, JA and Soares, FAL (2016) Use of nitrogen from fertilizer and cover crops by upland rice in an oxisol under no-tillage in the Cerrado. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 6, 728737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, CGM, Resende, AV, Gutiérrez, AM, Moreira, SG, Borghi, E and Almeida, GO (2018) Macronutrient uptake and export in transgenic maize under two levels of fertilization investment. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 53, 13631372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Sousa, DMG and Lobato, E (2004a) Cerrado: Correção do Solo e Adubação. Planaltina, DF, Brazil: Embrapa.Google Scholar
Sousa, DMG and Lobato, E (2004b) Adubação Fosfatada em Solos da Região do Cerrado. In Yamada, T and Abdalla, SRS (eds), Fósforo na Agricultura Brasileira. Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil: Potafos, pp. 157196.Google Scholar
Syers, JK, Johnston, AE and Curtin, D (2008) Efficiency of soil and fertilizer phosphorus use. Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 18, 108.Google Scholar
Teixeira, CM, Carvalho, GJC, Furtini Neto, AE, Andrade, MJB and Marques, ELS (2005) Produção de biomassa e teor de macronutrientes do milheto, feijão de- porco e guandu-anão em cultivo solteiro e consorciado. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 29, 9399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiecher, T, Santos, DR, Kaminski, J and Calegari, A (2012) Forms of inorganic phosphorus in soil under different long term soil tillage systems and winter crops. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 36, 271281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, JLR and Pereira, MG (2008) Dinâmica do potássio nos resíduos vegetais de plantas de cobertura no cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 32, 16091618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, JLR, Pereira, MG, Andrioli, I, Polidoro, JC and Fabian, AJ (2005) Decomposição e liberação de nitrogênio de resíduos culturais de plantas de cobertura em um solo de cerrado. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 29, 609618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, JLR, Pereira, MG and Fabian, AJ (2008) Produção de fitomassa por plantas de cobertura e mineralização de seus resíduos em plantio direto. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 43, 421428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urrutia, O, Erro, J, Guardado, I, San Francisco, S, Mandado, M, Baigorri, R, Claude, YJM and Garcia-Mina, J (2014) Physico-chemical characterization of humic–metal–phosphate complexes and their potential application to the manufacture of new types of phosphate-based fertilizers. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 177, 128136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valadares Filho, SC, Silva, LFC, Gionbelli, MP, Rotta, PP, Marcondes, MI, Chizzotti, ML and Prados, LF (2016) Nutrient Requirements of Zebu and Crossbred Cattle – BR-CORTE. Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Viçosa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Raij, B, Cantarella, H, Quaggio, JA and Furlani, AMC (1996) Recomendações de calagem e adubação para o Estado de São Paulo. Campinas, São Paulo: Instituto Agronômico de Campinas.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, JT, Tedeschi, LO, Fox, DG, Galyean, ML and Greene, LW (2007) Feeding nitrogen and phosphorus in beef cattle feedlot production to mitigate environmental impacts. The Professional Animal Scientist 23, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vásconez, G and Pinochet, D (2018) Residual value of the phosphate added to Ecuadorian and Chilean soils with different phosphorus retention capacity. Journal of Soil Science Plant Nutrition 18, 6072.Google Scholar
Volf, MR and Rosolem, CA (2021) Soil P diffusion and availability modified by controlled-release P fertilizers. Journal of Soil Science Plant Nutrition 21, 162172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withers, PJ, Rodrigues, M, Soltangheisi, A, De Carvalho, TS, Guilherme, LR, Benites, VDM, Gatiboni, LC, Sousa, DMG, Nunes, RS, Rosolem, CA, Andreote, FD, Oliveira Júnior, A, Coutinho, ELM and Pavinato, PS (2018) Transitions to sustainable management of phosphorus in Brazilian agriculture. Scientific Reports 8, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zavaschi, E, de Abreu Faria, L, Ferraz-Almeida, R, do Nascimento, CAC, Pavinato, PS, Otto, R and Vitti, GC (2020) Dynamic of P flux in tropical acid soils fertilized with humic acid-complexed phosphate. Journal of Soil Science Plant Nutrition 20, 19371948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. P content in DM (kg/t) of grains and residues and the harvest index according to the Brazilian literature

Figure 1

Table 2. Cover crop yield and P content in the DM for each crop under Brazilian Cerrado conditions

Figure 2

Table 3. Cultivated area, forage, grain and sweet potato yield based on DM and the total amount of phosphorus accumulated in the grain, forages and residues by each crop grown during each growing season for farm 1

Figure 3

Table 4. Cultivated area, forage, grain and sweet potato yield based on DM and the total amount of phosphorus accumulated in the grain, forages and residues by each crop grown during each growing season for farm 2

Figure 4

Table 5. Number of animals in confinement per year for each animal category, i.e. growing and fattening phase, initial and final live weight, live weight gain per animal and total per farm and P exported by animals during the two years of confinement on farms 1 and 2

Figure 5

Figure 1. Summary of average P inputs and outputs (kg/ha/year) in the production system of farm 1 based on the data obtained for the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping years and beef cattle production from 2020 to 2021. The stocking rate on the farm was 1 animal/ha.

Figure 6

Figure 2. Summary of average P inputs and outputs (kg/ha/year) in the production system of farm 2 based on data obtained for the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 cropping years and beef cattle production from 2020 to 2021. The stocking rate on the farm was 0.6 animals/ha.

Figure 7

Table 6. Phosphorus inputs and outputs in the grains, sweet potatoes, forage and straw to confinement for each growing season during the three cropping years for farm 1

Figure 8

Table 7. Phosphorus inputs and outputs in the grains, forage and straw to confinement for each growing season during the three cropping years for farm 2

Supplementary material: File

Moreira et al. supplementary material

Moreira et al. supplementary material
Download Moreira et al. supplementary material(File)
File 409.1 KB