Tag Archives: Latvia

094–111 J. Gailis, I. Turka and M. Ausmane
Soil tillage and crop rotation differently affect biodiversity and species assemblage of ground beetles inhabiting winter wheat fields
Abstract |
Full text PDF (732 kB)

Soil tillage and crop rotation differently affect biodiversity and species assemblage of ground beetles inhabiting winter wheat fields

J. Gailis*, I. Turka and M. Ausmane

Latvia University of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Soil and Plant Sciences, Liela street 2, LV-3001 Jelgava, Latvia
*Correspondence: janis.gailis@llu.lv

Abstract:

This paper continues studies on ground beetles (Carabidae) in differently managed winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) fields in Latvia. The main task of those studies was to assess how different soil tillage regimes (ploughing and non-inverse tillage) and different pre-crops (winter wheat and spring rapeseed (Brassica napus) affect assemblage and biodiversity of ground beetles in winter wheat fields. The research was carried out in the Latvia University of Agriculture Research and Study Farm ‘Pēterlauki’ (56°30’39.38’’N; 23°41’30.15’’E) during vegetation season of 2013. The results were compared with the results of similar research carried out at the same place during 2012. Totally 57 ground beetle species were observed in studied fields in 2013. Total species assemblage varied between both consecutive vegetation seasons of the research, however these were minor differences not connected with studied agro-ecological factors. Dominance structure of ground beetle species was significantly different between both vegetation seasons – species which were dominant and subdominant in 2012 became subdominant and dominant one year later, accordingly. Annual effects of soil tillage regime and pre-crop on ground beetle dominance structure also were observed, however some differences were recognized between both vegetation seasons. In case, if weed control was successful, higher ground beetle biodiversity might be observed in ploughed fields pre-cropped with spring rapeseed. Otherwise, significantly higher ground beetle biodiversity may be observed in harrowed soil independently from the pre-crop.

Key words:

, , , , ,




123–133 A. Lēnerts, D. Popluga, K. Naglis-Liepa and P. Rivža
Fertilizer use efficiency impact on GHG emissions in the Latvian crop sector
Abstract |
Full text PDF (348 kB)

Fertilizer use efficiency impact on GHG emissions in the Latvian crop sector

A. Lēnerts¹, D. Popluga¹*, K. Naglis-Liepa¹ and P. Rivža²

¹Latvia University of Agriculture, Faculty of Economics and Social Development,
Institute of Economics and Regional Development, Svetes street 18, LV-3001, Jelgava,
Latvia
²Latvia University of Agriculture, Faculty of Information technologies, Liela street 2,
LV-3001, Jelgava, Latvia
*Correspondence: dina.popluga@llu.lv

Abstract:

Within increasing production activity Latvian agricultural sector has become one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Latvia. In 2013, agricultural sector contributed 21.0% of the total GHG emissions originated in Latvia (2310.1 Gg CO2eq). Analysis of agricultural GHG emissions by sources shows that direct N2O emissions from agricultural soils through the usage of synthetic fertilizers are one of the most significant GHG source in Latvia. The usage of synthetic fertilizers is one of the most common widespread agricultural practices in Latvian cropping systems and according to statistical data usage of synthetic fertilizers is constantly increasing, for example, in 2013 it increased by 6.9% if compared with 2012. Taking into account that over-fertilization can lead to negative economic and environmental consequences, such as high production costs, depletion of energy resources, and increased GHG emissions, this research aims to estimate how effective usage of synthetic fertilizers are in Latvian crop farms. In order to achieve the set aim an N fertilizer usage were estimated in four crop farms by giving insight into N balance and N use efficiency (NUE) rate in these farms. Research results suggest that improved N efficiency can be selected as GHG mitigation measure as it reduces N surpluses and the use and production of mineral fertiliser while maintaining yield levels. It was also concluded that improved N efficiency reduces direct N2O emissions from fertilized soils and indirect N2O emissions that occur by the release of NH3.

Key words:

, , ,




479-488 dairy cows. Grasslands are characterized by multiple functions and values. They provide forage for grazing and browsing animals, both domestic and wild, and support rural economies, functioning as the major source of livelihood for local communities. Grassland landscapes are aesthetically pleasing, provide recreation opportunities, open space and improve the quality of life of the whole society (Peeters, 00).Table . The percentage of grassland in agricultural land (AA) in different EU countries by EURASTAT, 00.Country% of AA
The Effect of Grassland-based Forages on Milk Quality and Quantity P. Stypinski Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW), Department of Agronomy Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland, piotr_stypinski@sggw.pl Abstract: Grassland is the first land use in the agricultural areas (AA) of Europe, covering, with rangeland, 56 million ha (33% of AA in EU). Grasslands are characterized by multiple functions and values but one of the most important is forage production for ruminants. In the “grassland region” milk production is connected with grassland management and proper utilisation, whereas in other parts of Europe milk production is based on maize and concentrates. Unfortunately, grassland, particularly grazing, seems to be less important than in the past. Milk quality depends on animal feed. Milk and meat produced from grassland, particularly from botanically diverse pastures, have higher concentrations of those fatty acids and antioxidants which are considered to be of benefit to human health. Key words: fatty acid, grassland management, grassland potential, milk quality INTRODUCTION Grassland is the first land use in the agricultural areas (AA) of Europe. Grasslands and rangeland cover 56 million ha (33% of AA in EU), including about 17.5 million ha of rangelands (10% of AA), mainly in the mountain areas (EUROSTAT, 2008), (Peeters, 2009). However these numbers hide large differences among Member States of the EU: for example in the UK 65% of AA is covered by grassland, in Ireland more than 70%, while in Eastern Europe the proportion is lower, e.g. Poland (21%), Estonia (25%), Romania 33% (Table 1). The seasonality of production of grassland and forage is primarily influenced by temperature and soil moisture which limit the length and determine the intensity of the growing season. In most of Europe, temperature dictates the main seasonal trends in herbage growth but in southern and Eastern Europe, in particular, summer trends are conditioned by the availability of soil moisture (Laidlaw et al., 2006). Milk production per 1 ha of agricultural land is generally connected with the share of grassland in total agricultural lands; the best milk productivity is observed in the Atlantic zone of Europe (Smit et al., 2008). Dry matter production, forage quality, management, stocking rate and animal production differ in some European regions depending on many factors. Low production sward can only produce annually about 2–3 tonnes of dry matter (DM) per ha, while in contrast high production sward can yield as much as 10–12 t DM or even 15-20 t DM under good management and production conditions, and is usually used for 479
Abstract |
Full text PDF (257 kB)

The Effect of Grassland-based Forages on Milk Quality and Quantity P. Stypinski Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW), Department of Agronomy Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland, piotr_stypinski@sggw.pl Abstract: Grassland is the first land use in the agricultural areas (AA) of Europe, covering, with rangeland, 56 million ha (33% of AA in EU). Grasslands are characterized by multiple functions and values but one of the most important is forage production for ruminants. In the “grassland region” milk production is connected with grassland management and proper utilisation, whereas in other parts of Europe milk production is based on maize and concentrates. Unfortunately, grassland, particularly grazing, seems to be less important than in the past. Milk quality depends on animal feed. Milk and meat produced from grassland, particularly from botanically diverse pastures, have higher concentrations of those fatty acids and antioxidants which are considered to be of benefit to human health. Key words: fatty acid, grassland management, grassland potential, milk quality INTRODUCTION Grassland is the first land use in the agricultural areas (AA) of Europe. Grasslands and rangeland cover 56 million ha (33% of AA in EU), including about 17.5 million ha of rangelands (10% of AA), mainly in the mountain areas (EUROSTAT, 2008), (Peeters, 2009). However these numbers hide large differences among Member States of the EU: for example in the UK 65% of AA is covered by grassland, in Ireland more than 70%, while in Eastern Europe the proportion is lower, e.g. Poland (21%), Estonia (25%), Romania 33% (Table 1). The seasonality of production of grassland and forage is primarily influenced by temperature and soil moisture which limit the length and determine the intensity of the growing season. In most of Europe, temperature dictates the main seasonal trends in herbage growth but in southern and Eastern Europe, in particular, summer trends are conditioned by the availability of soil moisture (Laidlaw et al., 2006). Milk production per 1 ha of agricultural land is generally connected with the share of grassland in total agricultural lands; the best milk productivity is observed in the Atlantic zone of Europe (Smit et al., 2008). Dry matter production, forage quality, management, stocking rate and animal production differ in some European regions depending on many factors. Low production sward can only produce annually about 2–3 tonnes of dry matter (DM) per ha, while in contrast high production sward can yield as much as 10–12 t DM or even 15-20 t DM under good management and production conditions, and is usually used for 479

dairy cows. Grasslands are characterized by multiple functions and values. They provide forage for grazing and browsing animals, both domestic and wild, and support rural economies, functioning as the major source of livelihood for local communities. Grassland landscapes are aesthetically pleasing, provide recreation opportunities, open space and improve the quality of life of the whole society (Peeters, ²00⁸).Table ¹. The percentage of grassland in agricultural land (AA) in different EU countries by EURASTAT, ²00⁸.Country% of AA

Country% of AAMalta 0,0

Abstract:

France33.4Finland 1.3

Key words: