Using nitrogen budgets to indicate nitrogen use efficiency and losses from whole farm systems: a comparison of three methodological approaches

Abstract

Three approaches to nitrogen budgeting were developed and their ability to quantitatively describe nitrogen cycling in a fertilizer based and a grass–clover based beef system tested. Budgets ranged in complexity from the Economic Input:Output (EIO) budget, which accounted simply for purchases and sales of nitrogen over the farmgate, through the Biological Input:Output (BIO) budget, which included estimates of biological nitrogen fixation and attempted to partition losses into leaching and gaseous forms, to the Transfer:Recycle:Input:Output (TRIO) budget, which also accounted for key soil processes. Nitrogen unaccounted for in the fertilized system decreased with increasing budget complexity (285, 212 and 188 kg ha-1 yr-1 unaccounted for by the EIO, BIO and TRIO budgets, respectively). In the legume based grass–clover system, the EIO budget did not accurately describe total nitrogen inputs as it did not include 146 kg ha-1 yr-1 from symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In the grass–clover system, nitrogen unaccounted for was again greater using the BIO than the TRIO budget (103 and 79 kg ha-1 yr-1, respectively). In conclusion, the most complex budgeting approach (TRIO) was able to account for the fate of a greater proportion of nitrogen inputs than the simpler approaches. However, the perceived success of the different approaches was strongly dependent on the precise objective.