# Livestock Integration Into Cropping Systems Enhances Their Climate Change Resistance and Mitigation While Reducing Their Environmental Impacts

## TL;DR

Integrating livestock with crops improves farming stability and reduces environmental harm under climate change.

## Contribution

This study shows that crop-livestock systems offer better climate resistance and lower emissions than conventional or vegan systems.

## Key findings

- Conventional systems have high productivity but greater environmental impacts and lower stability.
- Crop-livestock systems provide more stable yields and better soil health under extreme weather.
- Integrated systems reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching compared to other methods.

## Abstract

The sustainability of cropping systems is linked to their circularity, which is their ability to close resource cycles such as carbon and nitrogen through strategies for managing crop residues, byproducts, and other inputs. Here, we investigate three crop rotations—business‐as‐usual (BAU), vegan, and integrated crop‐livestock systems (ICLS)—varying in livestock integration, crop residue fate, and human diet sustained. Under ten climate change scenarios, we compare their impacts on multiple ecosystem services during 24 years over 541,800 ha in Belgium using a validated crop model. All three circularity scenarios are found to be net greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, with increasing intensity under climate change. The BAU system, favoring cash crops such as sugarbeet or potato, demonstrates the highest productivity, which, however, is highly variable across years and comes with greater environmental impacts such as GHG emissions (+45% and +23% compared to ICLS and Vegan in average—i.e., across all sites and climate scenarios). The Vegan system has lower carbon sequestration than the ICLS due to the lack of pasture and livestock, which, however, is partly offset by the regular incorporation of crop residues into the soil. Finally, ICLS, which include temporary pastures and sheep, demonstrate intermediate productivity levels compared to the other systems. However, they offer the greatest stability and resistance to extreme weather (+43% and +86% for stability compared to BAU and Vegan, in average), with better environmental performance. Therefore, our study reveals the benefits of crop‐livestock systems in terms of climate change adaptation, through stability and resistance to extreme climate events, and mitigation, through soil carbon sequestration and reduced greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching. Moreover, our findings highlight the critical links between farm‐level circularity, soil‐crop feedbacks, human diet, and climate change.

This study compares three types of farming systems in Belgium—conventional, vegan, and crop–livestock integrated—under future climate change. Using crop model 24‐year simulations over 541,800 ha under ten climate change scenarios, we assessed how productive, stable, and environmentally friendly they are over time. While conventional systems exhibit the highest productivity, they also cause higher environmental impacts and are less stable under extreme weather. Crop–livestock systems offer a good balance, with more stable productivity, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and better soil health. Overall, integrating crops and livestock helps farms adapt to climate change while reducing environmental impacts.