Swedish production of organic grain legumes for food insights from research and practice, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biosystems and Technology, Alnarp, Sweden Per Modig, Fagraslätt farm / Swedish Rural Economy and Agricultural Society, Kristianstad, Sweden
Swedish production of organic grain legumes for food a researcher s perspective SLU, Department of Biosystems and Technology, Alnarp
Potential to replace part of the meat consumption in Sweden with domestic grain legumes? 70% of Swedens agricultural land is used for animal feed production More grain legumes could be grown in Sweden, e.g. pea, faba bean, Phaseolus beans, lupins, lentil, soybean. Photo: Pamela Yah Konfor
Protein supply, comparing current meat consumption with a scenario that domestic grain legumes replace imported meat g protein capita -1 day -1 40 30 20 10 0 current replace import legumes chicken pork beef Calculations based on data in Hallström et al. (2014). Food Policy 47, 81 90.
Protein supply, comparing current meat consumption with a scenario that domestic grain legumes replace imported meat This replacement requires a per-capita consumption of about 110 g cooked beans, peas or lentils per day. Photo: G. Carlsson
Climate impact, comparing current meat consumption with a scenario that domestic grain legumes replace imported meat kg CO 2 -eq. capita -1 year -1 800 600 400 200 0 current replace import legumes chicken pork beef * * Assuming greenhouse gas emissions corresponding to 1,3 kg CO 2 -eq. per kg dry GL. Data for meat based on Hallström et al. (2014). Food Policy 47, 81 90.
Land use: the replacement requires about 60 000 ha for increased Swedish grain legume cultivation Assuming average GL yield yield of 3 ton/ha, containing 26 % protein 1200 Blue bars: current land use in Swedish agriculture (Swedish board of Agriculture / Statistics Sweden) Thousands ha 800 400 Land in Sweden required for grain legume cultivation to replace imported meat (green part of the bar). Land (outside Sweden) required for the production of imported meat. 0 Temporary grasslands, forage crops Cereals Pastures, meadows Oilseeds Sugar beet, potato Field vegetables, niche crops Grain legumes Land saving
Increased grain legume cultivation cropping system diversification Reduced need for N fertilization and pesticides in conventional production New opportunities for grain legume production on organic farms without animals Photos: G. Carlsson
Yield stability in organic grain legume production Abundant weed growth in fields with organic cultivation of lupins, faba beans and lentils (photos: G. Carlsson).
Complementarity in grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances crop performance Lupin/barley Faba bean/wheat Lentil/oat (photo: G. Carlsson) (photo: E.S. Jensen) (photo: G. Carlsson)
Complementarity in grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances crop performance Bedoussac et al. 2015. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 911-935.
Why not more intercropping? Despite the mentioned benefits, intercropping for production of mature grains is rarely adopted by Swedish farmers Technical challenges for cultivation and harvesting Photos: E.S. Jensen
Focus on Intercropping in Organic Legumes (FIOL) Ongoing research aiming to identify problems, market opportunities and technical solutions for Swedish organic grain legume production. Participatory design and assessment of grain legume-cereal intercropping systems. Focus group meetings linking key actors in the grain legume-based food system Photo: G. Carlsson
Thank you for your attention! Photo: G. Carlsson
Additional benefits of intercropping potential to prevent pests damages Relative abundance of aphids Faba bean sole crops Faba bean/wheat intercrops Alexia Gloria Julia A+G A+J G+J A+G+J
Land use, comparing current meat consumption with the scenario that domestic grain legumes (GL) replace imported meat 0,12 0.12 ha capita -1 year -1 0,08 0.08 0,04 0.04 0 current replace import legumes chicken pork beef * * Assuming average GL production of 3 ton / ha and 26 % GL protein concentration Data for meat based on Hallström et al. (2014). Food Policy 47, 81 90.