In the heart of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest biome, a quiet revolution is taking place. As the demand for sustainable food systems grows, farmers and researchers are exploring alternative soybean production methods to mitigate the environmental impacts of conventional agro-industrial practices. A recent study published in *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* sheds light on the environmental performance of these alternatives, offering valuable insights for the agriculture sector.
The study, led by Réussite Bugale Malembaka from the Agroecological Transitions Institute at ETH Zurich, conducted a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of five different soybean production systems in the states of Minas Gerais and Paraná. The systems included conventional genetically modified (GM) soybean production and four alternatives: GM inputs-reduced, conventional non-GM, conventional non-GM soybean–coffee intercropped, and organic.
The results revealed a complex picture. While organic and soybean–coffee intercropped systems showed the lowest impacts on biodiversity loss, ecotoxicity, and soil quality, they did not outperform conventional GM production in categories like climate change, acidification, eutrophication, and non-renewable energy use. “Alternative productions faced challenges such as weed control, bioinput production, and efficiency, as well as contamination from conventional neighboring farms,” Malembaka explained. “Addressing these led to an increased use of diesel and biopesticides.”
The study also highlighted the potential of diversifying soybean cropping systems and improving management of crop residues. These strategies could reduce inputs, close nutrient loops locally, and avoid the environmental impacts of intensive monocultures. However, the initial decrease in soybean production volumes might lead to additional land use elsewhere, a critical consideration for the agriculture sector.
From a commercial perspective, the findings suggest that while alternative production systems can offer environmental benefits, they may also present challenges that need to be carefully managed. For instance, the increased use of diesel and biopesticides in alternative systems could impact production costs and market competitiveness.
The study’s sensitivity analysis indicated that a 10% reduction in fertilizers and diesel could decrease emissions by 0 to 14.4% across production systems. This suggests that even small improvements in management practices could have a significant impact on the environmental performance of soybean production.
As the agriculture sector continues to grapple with the need for sustainable practices, this research offers a nuanced perspective on the potential and challenges of alternative soybean production systems. It underscores the importance of a holistic approach that considers not just environmental impacts, but also economic and social factors.
The study’s findings could shape future developments in the field, encouraging farmers and researchers to explore innovative strategies for sustainable soybean production. As Malembaka noted, “A diversification of soybean cropping systems and improved management of crop residues would effectively reduce inputs, favor closing nutrient loops locally, and avoid replicating the environmental impacts of intensive monocultures.”
In the quest for sustainable food systems, this research serves as a valuable guide, highlighting the complexities and opportunities of alternative agriculture. It’s a reminder that the path to sustainability is not always straightforward, but with careful consideration and innovation, it’s a journey worth undertaking.