Corrigendum to “Sustainable farming strategies for mixed crop-livestock farms in Luxembourg simulated with a hybrid Agent-Based and Life-Cycle Assessment Model” [J. Clean. Prod. 386 (2023) 135759](S0959652622053331)(10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135759)
Authors
Bayram A., Marvuglia A., Gutierrez T.N., Weis J.P., Conter G., Zimmer S.
Reference
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 436, art. no. 140230, 2024
Description
The authors regret that the following errors have been detected in the paper after publication. • At page 3, under “Lactation”: the paper reports a probability of success of 0.4 for the insemination success rate, but it should be corrected to 0.5. Nonetheless, the correct probability is reported in Fig. 1.• At page 5, under “Nitrogen excretion”: 170 kg-Norg/year/ha corresponds to [Formula presented]LSU, which we can approximate to 1.7 LSU. The conversion comes from the fact that 1 cow (i.e., 1 bovine above 2 years) corresponds to 1 LSU and 1,2 fertilizer units (which is equivalent to 85 kg Norg). Therefore, 170 kg Norg correspond to 2 fertilizer units, which is equivalent to [Formula presented]LSU/ha. This value must be corrected from 1.6 LSU to 1.7 LSU also in the last line of Table 5.For the sake of completeness, however, we need to precise that a farmer can keep more than 2 LSU per hectare, but this will prevent the possibility to get the subsidy for “extensification of permanent grassland” (“Landschaftspflege”) in Table 5, and will cause the production of more organic manure than cannot be used in the farmer's own fields, therefore the farmer will have in this case to give the excess manure to some other farmer. • In Table 5, the correct values of the “compensatory allowance” should be:Up to 90 ha: 165 €/ha; above 90 ha: 90 €/ha. No difference between arable or green land. The values reported in the paper (that have been used to perform the simulations) were the ones in force until July 2021. • At page 9, it is indicated that Fig. 7(a–d) show the LCIA results for three different endpoint values. The reader should read Fig. 8(a–d), instead of Fig. 7(a–d).Table 6 needs to be corrected as follows. [Table presented] The table is intended to show common rations in Luxembourg that contain either more grass silage or more maize silage, depending on what is available on the farm. The aim of the study by Zimmer et al. (2021) is to show to what extent the daily amount of soy can be reduced, while still feeding the animals the protein they need. R3 and R4 show common rations in Luxembourg with common soya contents (SoyaMax). R1 and R2 are the corresponding rations with reduced soya content and still supplying the animals with protein according to their needs (SoyaMin). • In Fig. 7, the content of the rectangle box at the bottom must be replaced by the following statement: “If FarmerGC > β produce soybean locally in the land area that would normally be used for maize cultivation”.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Link
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140230
