4 10.1002/jpln.201400133 J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.

2015, 178, 4–12

Organic matter returns to soils must be higher under organic compared

to conventional farming#
Günter Leithold1*, Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen2, and Christopher Brock1
1 Justus Liebig University Gießen, Chair of Organic Farming, Karl Glöckner Str. 21C, 35394 Gießen, Germany
2 Technical University Munich, Chair of Organic Farming and Agronomy, Liesel-Beckmann-Str. 2, 85354 Freising, Germany

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to discuss the demand of fresh organic matter (FOM) supply to maintain
soil organic matter (SOM) levels and productivity of arable soils under organic management. The
basic question is whether the different frame conditions in organic vs. conventional farming result
in a different and system-specific FOM demand. If this is the case, it would follow that the farming
system has to be considered in the calculation of SOM balances. SOM balances are the most
common decision support tools in organic matter management. A conversion to organic farming
in practice usually leads to an increase of SOM levels as well as soil microbial activity over time.
The system-specific driver of this effect is the indispensable extension of the share of (perennial)
legumes in crop rotations at the expense of non-legumes such as cereals, row crops, and maize.
Extended legume cropping is essential for N supply in crop rotations as the import of N fertilizer
in total is limited by organic farming regulations and mineral N fertilizer may not be used at all.
Based on this characteristic of organic management, we argue that the demand of FOM supply
to soils must be higher than in conventional crop production. The most relevant factors are (1)
the non-existence of mineral N fertilizer as an external N source that supports the maintenance
of SOM by decreasing the demand for SOM-N, (2) benefits of increasing SOM stocks and turn-
over for soil productivity under organic management, and, (3) increased mass-losses of FOM
and easily degradable SOM compartments due to higher microbial activity in soils. These effects
have to be quantified and must be considered in SOM balances in order to avoid misleading as-
sessments and erroneous decisions.

Key words: soil organic matter balance / organic farming / legumes / mineral fertilizer N /
farming system comparison

Accepted June 10, 2014

1 Introduction
The maintenance of soil organic matter (SOM) levels in arable
In contrast to their calculated potentials to sequester C, arable
soils is crucial for sustainable crop production as well as for
soils actually seem to loose C in many regions today (Jans-
soil and climate protection (Lal, 2004; Bellamy et al., 2005;
sens et al., 2005; Kutsch et al., 2010; Schrumpf et al., 2011).
Janzen, 2005; Hüttl et al., 2008; Johnston et al., 2009; Höper
With regard to soil functions and services, including C se-
and Schäfer, 2012). SOM is a key factor of many soil services
questration, losses of SOM cannot be tolerated. Therefore,
as it positively influences nearly all important soil properties.
tools for a reliable assessment of the state of fresh organic
Microbial activity, mechanical stability and resilience of soils,
matter (FOM) supply to soils in farming practice are required.
water retention as well as buffering and filtering functions are
SOM balances have been approved as ‘‘best practice’’ in
all related to SOM. Moreover, SOM is a relevant accumulator
dealing with this issue today, as they provide the only true
and transformer of nutrients, in particular N, P and S (Sauer-
practice-applicable approach to the assessment of (soil) or-
beck, 1992; Hülsbergen, 2003; Fageria, 2012). Furthermore,
ganic matter management (Brock et al., 2013).
C sequestration in SOM is a relevant issue in the context of
climate change and mitigation strategies (Freibauer et al.,
Several authors identified conversion to organic farming as a
2004; Janzen, 2004; Lal, 2004).
relevant measure for C sequestration (ECCP, 2003; Wessolek

* Correspondence: Prof. Dr. G. Leithold;

e-mail: guenter.leithold@agrar.uni-giessen.de
#Focus Issue ‘‘Soil organic matter balance methods’’. Selected

papers presented on the international workshop ‘‘Evaluation of soil

organic matter balance methods as practice-applicable tools for envi-
ronmental impact assessment and farm management support (SOM-
patic)’’ held in Rauischholzhausen (Germany), November 20–22,
2013 (Conveners: Christopher Brock, Uwe Franko, and Hans-Rudolf
Oberholzer).

ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.plant-soil.com

J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
et al., 2008; Gattinger et al., 2012, 2013). On the other hand,
Leifeld and Fuhrer (2010) as well as Leifeld et al. (2013) chal-
lenge this assumption. An option for the reliable assessment
of SOM management and FOM supply to arable soils with
SOM balances is therefore of fundamental interest. In order to
provide such an option, it has to be clarified whether frame
conditions in organic and conventional farming imply a sys-
tem-specific impact on FOM demand that has to be consid-
ered in SOM balances.
It must be assumed that particularly the abandonment of min-
eral N fertilizer in organic farming and the resulting higher de-
pendence on soil services implies a higher demand for FOM
supply to soils compared to conventional crop production.
This has already been addressed by the authors in earlier pa-
pers, along with recommendations for the adaptation of SOM
balances (Leithold et al., 1997, 2007). Still, contradicting re-
sults of Kolbe (2010) and Körschens et al. (2013) call for fur-
ther clarification. Against this background, the aim of this con-
tribution is to discuss the characteristics of SOM management
interactions in organic and non-organic crop production
based on results from long-term field experiments as well as
from on-farm surveys. By doing so, we want to give theoreti-
cal as well as experimental support for the need of higher or-
ganic matter returns to soils in organic compared to conven-
tional farming systems.
2 Characteristics of organic farming and their
relevance for SOM management
2.1 Implications of the abandonment of mineral N
fertilizer
The application of mineral N fertilizer is prohibited worldwide
in organic farming (IFOAM, 2012; European Commission,
2007). Conversion to organic farming, therefore, usually im-
plies adaptation of the crop rotations. Organic crop rotations
are legume-based as biological N fixation (BNF) provides the
only relevant external N source in organic farming systems.
5500
5000
–1
Total soil nitrogen stock / kg ha
4500
Inial quanty 1967
4000
3500
3000
0 20 40
Applicaon of farmyard manure nitrogen / kg (ha · y)
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
OM returns to soil under organic farming 5
It has been shown in several field experiments that mineral N
fertilizer application does not only increase crop yield levels
but biomass in total. This results in higher crop residue
amounts which in turn positively influence FOM supply com-
pared to unfertilized plots (Asmus and Görlitz, 1978; Rauhe et
al., 1987; Haynes and Naidu, 1998; Hülsbergen, 2003).
Moreover, mineral N fertilizer has an indirect positive effect on
SOM dynamics by the alteration of nutrient cycling on the
farm and field level (Franken, 1985). On mixed farms and ani-
mal production farms, nutrient cycling is intensified by the
yield increases from mineral N fertilization and the resulting
increase of organic manure quantities.
The effect of organic and mineral N fertilizers, applied alone
or in combination, on SOM can be examined in combination
field experiments. These are long-term field experiments
(LTFE) with graduated quantities of applied mineral and or-
ganic fertilizer N. Such experiments allow for the quantifica-
tion of the amount of organic fertilizer N (usually cattle stable
manure) necessary to maintain SOM levels and productivity
at a certain mineral fertilizer N level. Fig. 1 shows results from
the Combination LTFE Seehausen near Leipzig, Germany
(site conditions at Seehausen research station: altitude
132 m asl, mean annual rainfall 554 mm, mean annual tem-
perature 9.3°C, Gleyic Luvisol, 10.2 g C kg–1 and 0.93 g N kg–1
in the Ap horizon). The experiment was started in 1967. Treat-
ment factors were (1) amount of cattle manure (rotten stable
manure, FYM N), and (2) of mineral fertilizer (MIN N). Both
treatments comprised of four steps of N input [0, 50, 100, 150
kg N (ha  y–1)], respectively. The experiment had a full or-
thogonal design, including all possible combinations of treat-
ments, and was replicated four times. A detailed description
of the experiment is provided in Moritz and Leithold (1990)
and Hülsbergen (2003).
According to Fig. 1, a calculated application of 55 kg FYM N
(ha  y)–1 was necessary to maintain SOM levels (indicated by
soil total nitrogen STN) at the highest rate of mineral N ferti-
lization [150 kg MIN N (ha  y)–1]. The successive reduction of
MIN N produced an increasing demand of FYM N to maintain
Applicaon of mineral
nitrogen
Figure 1: Total soil N stock (ŷ) as indicator
0 kg N ha-1a-1
for soil organic matter (SOM) amount in top
50 kg N ha-1a-1 soils depending on application rates of farm
100 kg N ha-1a-1 yard manure N (x1) and mineral fertilizer N
150 kg N ha-1a-1 (x2) 30 y after beginning the Combination
LTFE Seehausen. NB: the figure is a 2D
60 80 100 120 140 160
–1
transformation of a 3D regression analysis
(cf. Eq. 1a) for explanatory reasons.
www.plant-soil.com
6 Leithold, Hülsbergen, Brock
initial STN levels. Without any MIN N input, the demand for
FYM N was 82.5 kg N (ha  y)–1, which is almost 1.5 times
higher than at the highest MIN N input (Hülsbergen, 2003).
Comparable combination experiments at Lauterbach, Ger-
many (580 m asl, 794 mm mean annual rainfall, 6.2°C mean
annual temperature, sandy loam, Dystric Cambisol, 28.7 g C
kg–1 and 2.71 g N kg–1 in the Ap horizon) and Groß Kreutz,
Germany (42 m asl, 537 mm mean annual rainfall, 8.9°C
mean annual temperature, sand, Albic Luvisol, 6.3 g C kg–1
and 0.54 g N kg–1 in the 0–60 cm layer) yielded, in principal,
similar results and, thus, confirmed the observations from the
Seehausen experiment. The magnitude of the effects obvi-
ously was affected by site conditions, initial SOM level, and
management (crop rotations, actual fertilization). Details on
all three LTFE are given by Hülsbergen (2003). In mathemati-
cal terms, the relation between MIN N and FYM N application
on SOM levels was:
Seehausen: ŷ = 71.6 + 0.284 x1 + 0.046 x2, B = 0.98*,
Lauterbach: ŷ = 242.3 + 0.231 x1 + 0.0258 x2
– 0.00009 x12, B = 0.87*,
Groß Kreutz: ŷ = 43.9 + 0.126 x1 + 0.049 x2, B = 0.83*,
where x1 = cattle stable manure N [kg N (ha  y)–1], x2 = miner-
al fertilizer N [kg N (ha  y)–1], and ŷ = topsoil STN content
[mg 100 g–1].
Equation 1.1 shows the original 3D regression behind Fig. 1.
In the figure, contents have been transferred to masses con-
sidering bulk density.
The equations display the interaction between farmyard man-
ure N and mineral fertilizer N with regard to the maintenance
of topsoil STN contents, and these mechanisms were compa-
rable for soil organic C (SOC) in the experiments (Hülsber-
gen, 2003). C/N ratios remained nearly constant (ibid.). As
the interaction of the two fertilizer N inputs was comparable
between the three LTFE, a global relation is indicated. This
conclusion is further supported by results of Asmus and Gör-
litz (1991), Sauerbeck (1992), and Kolbe (2005).
without mineral nitrogen ferlizaon
120 kg ha–1 mineral nitrogen ferlizaon
–1
Yield / dt DM ha
SOC content / mg 100 g soil
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
With regard to SOM management in organic farming, the
abandonment of mineral N fertilizer thus implies the necessity
to substitute this N source in order to avoid SOM losses.
Compensation can be achieved by increased FOM supply
from crop rotations (e.g., increased share of legumes on the
expense of non-legumes), or by an intensification of organic
fertilization.
2.2 Impact of SOM on non-legume yields
The abandonment of mineral N fertilizer with conversion to or-
ganic farming leads to an increased dependence of crop
yields on soil productivity. As SOM quantity is positively corre-
lated with soil productivity features, an increase of SOM lev-
els is desirable under organic management. Most important
in this context is the nutrient store and supply function of
SOM, especially with regard to N. But also the positive effect
of SOM on other soil functions will contribute to an increased
(1.1) potential of soil productivity.
Fig. 2 shows the relation between different SOC levels (result-
(1.2) ing from different FOM supply) and yield levels of maize in the
Soil Fertility LTFE Seehausen (cf. site conditions at Seehau-
(1.3) sen research station). Maize yield was dependent on SOC
after 20 y of differentiated management (Leithold and The
Dang, 1990; The Dang, 1990; Leithold, 1996). This impact
was especially relevant when no mineral N fertilizer was ap-
plied. Comparable results have been presented by Asmus
and Görlitz (1991). Further, a meta-analysis of LTFE by Brock
et al. (2011) showed that yield levels of non-legumes were
significantly dependent on SOM levels under organic man-
agement, while the relation was only weak in conventional
treatments. This confirms our hypothesis about the benefits
of intensifying FOM supply for increasing SOM levels with
conversion to organic farming.
2.2.1 SOM levels under organic management in practice
Several authors reported higher SOM levels under organic
compared to conventional management in practice (Piorr and
Werner, 1999; Munro et al., 2002; Gattinger et al., 2012). In
Figure 2: Yield of silage maize (ŷ) depending
on C content in soil (x1) and application rate
of mineral fertilizer N (x2) in the Soil fertility
–1
LTFE Seehausen.
www.plant-soil.com
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12 OM returns to soil under organic farming 7

Table 1: Soil organic C (SOC) content and microbial biomass carbon (MBC) content in top soils under conditions of conventional and organic
management. Paired-farm survey (Hoyer and Hülsbergen, 2008).

SOC MBC
/ g 100 g–1 soil / mg g–1 soil

Site Conventional Organic Conventional Organic

W 2.49 2.78 677 711

F 2.20 2.29 559 1055

P 1.20 1.30 335 520

O 1.25 1.41 437 559

A 1.21 1.39 471 661

S 0.85 1.20 295 508

C 1.38 1.27 362 322

B 0.66 0.63 231 329

mean 1.41aa 1.53b 421a 581b

(rel.) (1.00) (1.09) (1.00) (1.39)

standard deviation 0.63 0.68 147 236

p-Value 0.05 0.02

aDifferent letters indicate significant differences, p £ 0.05.

our own field survey, comparing FOM supply and SOM levels
on organic vs. conventional fields (Hoyer and Hülsbergen,
2008), similar results were found (Table 1).
The survey was a paired-farm study including eight organic
and conventional farms, respectively. On each farm, four sur-
vey plots (replications) were installed on five different fields,
respectively. The ten fields within each farm pair were chosen
with regard to comparability of site conditions, and soil texture
in particular.
the loss of the effect of mineral N fertilizer on SOM (cf. 2.1).
Most relevant for this compensation are increased propor-
tions of legumes in organic crop rotations. In particular, peren-
nial legumes (alfalfa, clover) and the common mixtures of
these legumes with grasses have a positive impact on SOM,
which is caused by the absence of soil disturbance, intense
rooting, and high C and N inputs to soils. SOC increases of
> 1,000 kg C (ha  y)–1 under alfalfa–clover–grass have been
observed in LTFE (Hülsbergen, 2003).

On average, SOC contents of the organic fields were almost

9% higher than for the conventional fields, and soil microbial
biomass was even higher by a factor of 1.39. Both differences Table 2: Carbon supply in average of 8 farm pairs with conventional
were statistically significant. Thus, the survey confirmed the and organic management (Hoyer and Hülsbergen 2008).
results of the studies referred to above.
Conventional farms Organic farms
The driving factor of the higher SOM indicators was presum-
/ kg (ha  y)–1 / kg (ha  y)–1
ably a higher FOM supply to soils on the organic fields (Ta-
ble 2). On average, C input to soils with FOM was 7,760 kg C Carbon supply with:
(ha  y)–1, which was » 1.55 times higher than for the conven-
Farm fertilizer 459 595
tional fields. While C input from animal manure and plant resi-
dues did not differ considerably, higher root masses in the or- Plant residues 1.640 1.616
ganic fields were the main factor behind the differences in C
Roots 2.892 5.549
input between the farming systems. The high root mass re-
sults from a considerably higher proportion of legumes in the Total 4.991 7.760
organic crop rotations and perennial legumes in particular Cropland share:
(Table 2). With the conventional farms, a share of 0.09 of the
arable area was cropped with legumes, while legume share Share of legumes 0.09 0.37
in the organic rotations was » 0.37. (Humus building)

Share of non-legumes 0.91 0.63

Obviously, organic management in practice can achieve an
(Humus consuming)
intensification of FOM supply to soils that over-compensates

ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.plant-soil.com

8 Leithold, Hülsbergen, Brock
Still, increasing SOM levels are not an intrinsic feature of or-
ganic management, but a result of the actual FOM supply,
which in turn is dependent on crop rotations, availability of or-
ganic manure, and tillage. If FOM supply decreases with con-
version to organic farming, SOM levels can be influenced
negatively (Hülsbergen, 2003; Brock et al., 2012a). Such a
situation, for example, might occur if animals are abandoned
in the conversion process and established organic cash crop
rotations do not contain enough legumes. An example be-
comes visible from Table 1. With farm pair C, the conventional
farm has both higher SOC and SMB levels. In this case, the
conventional farm was a mixed farm with 1.1 LU cattle ha–1,
while the organic counterpart was a stockless cash crop farm.
The organic farm thus had no cattle manure, which is known
to be a highly valuable substrate with regard to SOM manage-
ment (Triberti et al., 2008; Maillard and Angers, 2014). Even
though we decided to include this farm pair in our analyses,
comparisons between organic and conventional management
should in principal consider the farm type in order to produce
significant results. Actual FOM supply and the resulting im-
pact on SOM levels differs significantly between farm types
within organic farming (Pimentel et al., 2005; Schmid et al.,
2013; Schulz et al., 2014).
2.2.2 SOM levels under organic management in
long-term field experiments
Long-term field experiments prevail as the most valuable in-
struments for the analysis and assessment of long-term ef-
fects of crop rotations, fertilization, and tillage on soil proper-
ties, agronomic productivity and the environment. Still, not all
LTFE that are used in a certain analysis today may have origi-
nally been designed for the specific purpose. The explanatory
power of the analysis in turn can suffer from this situation.
Typical shortcomings are addressed by Leifeld and Fuhrer
(2010). Most importantly, initial values of soil properties are
missing and restriction of SOM indicator analyses contents in-
stead of masses.
Concerning farming system comparisons, Leifeld and Fuhrer
(2010) suggest that treatments should be comparable with re-
gard to crop rotations and organic fertilization to allow for im-
partial results. We would like to challenge this suggestion as
a global recommendation, because such experimental design
will usually fail to display actual farming practice. Depending
on the intended analyses, it can be necessary to have a prac-
tice-oriented design of treatments. Such design may in fact
not be suitable for the analysis of single factors, but it is inevi-
table for practice-oriented sustainability assessments of exist-
ing faming systems. Crop rotations differ significantly between
organic and conventional farming in most regions, especially
with regard to the share of (perennial) legumes. This should
be considered in experimental designs, if results on the actual
sustainability of farming systems are intended. Furthermore,
system comparisons should consider the farm type (mixed,
animal/fodder, stockless cash crop, etc.), as already pointed
out above.
Unsurprisingly, a comparison of farming systems with similar
crop rotations and organic fertilization shows a higher impact
on SOM indicators of treatments receiving additional mineral
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
N fertilizer than treatments without that fertilizer (Brock, 2009;
Brock et al., 2012a). This is in line with our explanations in
section 2.1. If the difference between organic and convention-
al treatments is restricted to the application of mineral N ferti-
lizer (and other agrochemicals), then the conventional treat-
ments will produce a more positive impact on SOM due to
substitution of SOM N in plant nutrition and higher amounts of
crop residues following higher yields. An example for this sit-
uation is the calculation of organic farming impact on SOM in
soils in Sweden by Andrén et al. (2010). However, this situa-
tion will not occur with crop rotations that refer to common
practice in organic and conventional farming in Europe and
many other regions worldwide. For example, differences in
crop rotations and organic matter management between or-
ganic and conventional farming practice with the same farm
type/production focus in the USA were considered in design
of the Rodale experiment (Pimentel et al., 2005). In this
experiment, the organic stockless crop production system
had a significantly stronger SOC accumulation [574 kg SOC
(ha  y)–1] than the comparable conventional system [239 kg
SOC (ha  y)–1] over 30 y.
3 Impact of increased microbial activity on
FOM turnover and SOM supply
Several authors, reporting on increased SOM levels with or-
ganic farming, observed an even more significant increase of
microbial biomass and fermentation activity (Piorr and Wern-
er, 1999; Munro et al., 2002; Mäder et al., 2002). In our own
paired farm survey, we found a comparable pattern (Table 1)
by means of a considerably larger difference between organic
and conventional farms with regard to microbial biomass than
with SOC. Changes in FOM supply thus have obviously a
much larger impact on microbial activity than on SOC, which
is known for very slow level changes. Referring to Van Dijk
(1982), Sauerbeck (1992) argues that implementation of or-
ganic fertilization and fodder legumes in a crop rotation may
only increase SOM by 1.08 to 1.12, while microbial biomass
and biologically mediated N mineralization can increase by
1.2 to 1.8 at the same time. Based on these observations,
it can be hypothesized that an increase of FOM supply is
affiliated with a higher turnover due to increased microbial
activity. Empirical proof for this assumption is, e.g., provided
by Asmus (1992), who observed that the share of stable
manure that was incorporated into SOM decreased with time
in the Groß Kreutz long-term field experiment (cf. 2.1) and
was dependent on the applied amount of manure. With
the highest applied amount of manure, the incorporation rate
was 0.14, while it was 0.258 with the lowest application
amount.
Concerning SOM balances, all of the methods described by
Brock et al. (2013) apply stability factors or incorporation/hu-
mification rates to assess SOM supply by organic fertilizers,
but until now there is no method that considers the effect of
application amounts. Even though the data base might still be
too poor for a quantification of this factor as a basis for
adapted SOM balances, it should be considered in the dis-
cussion of frame conditions for SOM management and FOM
supply in organic farming systems.
www.plant-soil.com
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12 OM returns to soil under organic farming 9

4 Estimation of crop-specific demand for FOM NR  ðNMF  nuÞ  ðNI  nuÞ

supply in organic farming kHU ¼  hFYM ; (2.1)
nFYM  nu
The parameterization of many SOM balance models has
been dependent on long-term field experiments (Asmus and NR ¼ YMP  dMP  nMP þ YBP  nBP : (2.2)
Herrmann, 1977; Kolbe, 2010; Körschens et al., 2013). Still,
LTFE only allow for an assessment of FOM demand at the For explanation of parameters see Table 3.
crop rotation level but not for single crops. The contribution of
single crops to the crop rotation effect can only be estimated This calculation has been implemented in the REPRO model
indirectly. A promising approach to the calculation of crop-re- for sustainability assessment (Hülsbergen, 2003; Hülsbergen
lated FOM demand has been the analysis of N balances in and Küstermann, 2007).
the soil–plant system (Leithold, 1983, 1991; Asmus, 1985).
Table 3 shows the calculation of FOM demand for winter
This approach is based on the assumption that mineralized
wheat as an example. According to the calculation, N in grain
SOM-N has to be compensated by FOM supply in order to
and straw is derived from fertilizer, atmospheric deposition,
avoid a mid- or long-term decrease of SOM levels. Even with
and mineralized SOM N. Calculated SOM N uptake allows for
high mineral fertilizer N supply, a considerable share of crop
an estimation of (theoretical) quantitative SOM change and
N uptake is derived from soil N sources (Rauhe, 1987; Powl-
the necessary amount of FOM to compensate for losses. The
son, 1993; Stevens et al., 2005; Nannen et al., 2011). This N
amount, which is mainly SOM-derived N, has to be compen- example suggests that the demand for SOM N increases with
decreasing mineral fertilizer N input even if a lower yield level
sated for by FOM supply in the course of the crop rotation.
is considered. Therefore, SOM N demand (and, thereupon,
Part of the compensation of mineralized SOM N can also be
FOM demand) of winter wheat is probably higher in organic
derived from inorganic N sources, in particular mineral ferti-
than conventional farming. According to the calculation, this
lizer N and N from atmospheric deposition (Leithold, 1991). In
situation will be true for all non-legume crops.
organic farming, legume-derived N replaces mineral fertilizer
N. Based on these considerations, crop-specific demand for
The presented approach integrates the arguments for a high-
FOM supply can be calculated according to:
er demand for FOM supply in organic than in conventional
farming presented in this paper. Abandonment of mineral fer-

Table 3: Calculation of FOM demand in winter wheat production based on the estimation of SOM contribution to N supply to crops.

Parameter Symbol Scale unit Conventional Organic farming

farming

Yield, main product (MP) YMP dt ha–1 80 40 50 60

Yield, by-product (BP) YBP dt ha–1 64 32 40 48

Dry matter content, MP dMP kg kg–1 FM 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

Dry matter content, BP dBP kg kg–1 FM 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

Nitrogen content, MP nMP kg N dt–1 DM 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8

Nitrogen content, BP nBP kg N dt–1 DM 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5

N removal, MP NRMP kg N ha–1 151.4 68.8 81.7 92.9

N removal, BP NRBP kg N ha–1 38.5 13.8 17.2 20.6

N removal, total NR kg N ha–1 189.9 82.6 98.9 113.5

Mineral-N fertilization NMF kg N ha–1 160 0 0 0

N immission NI kg N ha–1 30 30 30 30

N re-utilization nu factor 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80

N removal from soil NRS kg N ha–1 47.4 58.6 74.9 89.5

N content, farm yard manure (FYM)a nfym kg N t–1DM 30 30 30 30

Humification coefficient, fymb hfym HU t–1DM 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

FOM demandc kHU HU ha–1 0.74 0.85 1.09 1.31

aNitrogencontent of organic dry matter of farm yard manure (fym).

bSoilorganic matter (SOM) compensation per t organic dry matter of farm yard manure.
cExpressed in humus units HU (1 HU = 1 t SOM = 580 kg soil organic C).

ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.plant-soil.com

10 Leithold, Hülsbergen, Brock
tilizer N was the trigger for the higher calculated FOM de-
mand of organic winter wheat. This situation must be consid-
ered in organic crop production and must be recognized in
decision support and sustainability assessment tools such as
SOM balances. A validated model that was originally based
on the calculation for FOM demand described here has been
presented by Brock et al. (2012b).
5 Conclusions
In organic matter management the specific conditions of or-
ganic crop production have to be taken into consideration.
This is important for providing adequate decision support and
sustainability assessment tools like SOM balances. In spite of
a lower yield level, the demand for FOM supply to maintain
soil productivity is higher in organic than in conventional crop
production systems. The main reason for this are:
(1) Non-existence of mineral fertilizer as an N source for
crops and soil microorganisms.
(2) Higher dependence on soil functions and SOM services in
organic crop production and, therefore, demand for higher
SOM levels and turnover intensity,
(3) Positive correlation between organic matter supply and
turnover in soils.
The basic measure for sustainable SOM management in or-
ganic farming is an adapted crop rotation. Fodder legumes
must be integrated in crop rotations with a share 0.25–0.33 at
the expense of non-legumes as cereals, row crops, and
maize. Such an adjustment results both in a decreased total
uptake of SOM N in the rotation, and an increased input of N
(as a result of symbiotic fixation) and C.
To what extend mechanical impact intensity on soils in crop
production systems (hoeing) has an impact on FOM demand
to compensate for SOM losses cannot be appraised at this
time.
The crop-specific demand for FOM supply in organic farming
can be calculated based on the estimation of the contribution
of SOM to the N supply of crops, considering other effective N
sources. Validated implementation of that approach in SOM
balances was presented, supporting the applicability of the
concept.
References
Andrén, O., Kätterer, T., Kirchmann, H. (2010): How Will Conversion
to Organic Cereal Production Affect Carbon Stocks in Swedish
Agricultural Soils?, in Kirchmann, H., Bergström, L. (eds.): Organic
Crop Production–Ambitions and Limitations. Springer Science +
Business Media B.V., Berlin, Germany, pp. 161–172.
Asmus, F. (1985): Ermittlung des Bedarfs des Bodens an organischer
Substanz auf der Basis von Stickstoffentzügen. Arch. Acker Pfl.
Boden. 29, 31–38.
Asmus, F. (1992): Einfluss organischer Dünger auf Ertrag, Humus-
gehalt des Bodens und Humusreproduktion. Berichte über Land-
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
wirtschaft, 206. Sonderheft, Verlag Paul Parey, Bonn, Germany,
pp. 127–139.
Asmus, F., Görlitz, H. (1978): Einfluss organischer und mineralischer
Düngung auf die organische Substanz und den Stickstoffgehalt
einer Tieflehm-Fahlerde. Arch. Acker. Pfl. Boden. 22, 123–129.
Asmus, F., Görlitz, H. (1991): Einfluss unterschiedlicher Humusge-
halte im Boden auf die N- und C-Mineralisierung und die Wirkung
von Düngungsmaßnahmen. Arch. Acker Pfl. Boden. 35, 393–401.
Asmus, F., Hermann, V. (1977): Reproduktion der organischen
Substanz des Bodens. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissen-
schaften der DDR, Berlin, Germany.
Bellamy, M., Loveland, P. J., Bradley, R. I., Lark, R. M., Kirk, J. D.
(2005): Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales
1978–2003. Nature 437, 245–248.
Brock, C. (2009): Humusdynamik und Humusreproduktion in Acker-
bausystemen und deren Bewertung mit Hilfe von Humusindika-
toren und Humusbilanzmethoden. PhD thesis, University Gießen,
Germany.
Brock, C., Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., Schulz, F., Wiesinger,
K., Reinicke, F., Koch, W., Pallutt, B., Dittmann, B., Zimmer, J.,
Hülsbergen, K.-J., Leithold, G. (2011): Relation between soil
organic matter and yield levels of nonlegume crops in organic and
conventional farming systems. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174, 568–
575.
Brock, C., Oberholzer, H.-R., Schwarz, J., Fließbach, A., Hüls-
bergen, K.-J., Koch, W., Pallutt, B., Reinicke, F., Leithold, G.
(2012a): Soil organic matter balances in organic versus conven-
tional farming—modelling in field experiments and regional
upscaling for cropland in Germany. Org. Agric. 2, 185–195.
Brock, C., Hoyer, U., Leithold, G., Hülsbergen, K.-J. (2012b): The
humus balance model (HU-MOD): A simple tool for the
assessment of management change on soil organic matter levels
in arable soils. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 92, 239–254.
Brock, C., Franko, U., Oberholzer, H.-R., Kuka, K., Leithold, G.,
Kolbe, H., Reinhold, G. (2013): Humus balancing in Central
Europe—concepts, state of the art, and further challenges. J. Plant
Nutr. Soil Sci. 176, 3–11.
ECCP (2003): Second ECCP Progress Report. Can we meet our
Kyoto targets? Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
eccp/docs/second_eccp_report_en.pdf. (accessed November 05,
2013).
European Commission (EC) (2007): Council Regulation No 834/2007
of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labeling of organic
products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Available
at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:
2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF (accessed November 06, 2013).
Fageria, N. K. (2012): The role of soil organic matter in maintaining
sustainability of cropping systems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
43, 2063–2113.
Franken, H. (1985): Einfluss der Landbewirtschaftung auf die Humus-
versorgung. VDLUFA-Schriftenreihe, 16. Kongressband 1985,
Gießen, Germany, pp. 19–29.
Freibauer, A., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Smith, P., Verhagen, J. (2004):
Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma
122, 1–23.
Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fließbach, A.,
Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Smith, P., Scialabba, Nel.-
H., Niggli, U. (2012): Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under
organic farming. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18226–18231.
Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Haeni, M., Skinner, C., Fließbach, A.,
Buchmann, N., Mäder, P., Stolze, M., Smith, P., El-Hage, Scia-
labba, N., Niggli, U. (2013): Reply to Leifeld et al.: Enhanced top
soil carbon stocks under organic farming is not equated with
www.plant-soil.com
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
climate change mitigation. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 44, DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1221886110, available at: http://www.pnas.org/
content/110/11/E985.
Haynes, R., Naidu, R. (1998): Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure
applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical condi-
tions: a review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 51, 123–137.
Höper, H., Schäfer, W. (2012): Die Bedeutung der organischen
Substanz von Mineralböden für den Klimaschutz. Bodenschutz 3,
72–80.
Hoyer, U., Hülsbergen, K.-J. (2008): Analyse der Humusreproduktion
in ökologischen und konventionellen Praxisbetrieben, in Brock, C.,
Hoyer, U., Leithold, G., Hülsbergen, K.-J. (eds.): Entwicklung einer
praxisanwendbaren Methode der Humusbilanzierung im ökologi-
schen Landbau. Köster-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 35–63.
Hülsbergen, K.-J. (2003): Entwicklung und Anwendung eines Bilan-
zierungsmodells zur Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit landwirtschaft-
licher Systeme. Habilitation treatise, University Halle-Wittenberg,
Germany. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany.
Hülsbergen, K.-J., Küstermann, B. (2007): Das Modell REPRO—
Möglichkeiten der Anwendung in Betrieben des ökologischen
Landbaus, in Hülsbergen, K.-J., Döhler, H. (eds.): Bewertung
ökologischer Betriebssysteme—Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Stoffkreis-
läufe, Biodiversität. KTBL-Schrift 458, KTBL, Darmstadt, Germany,
pp. 184–206.
Hüttl, R., Prechtel, A., Bens, O. (2008): Zum Stand der Humusver-
sorgung der Böden in Deutschland. Cottbuser Schriften zur
Ökosystemgenese und Landschaftsentwicklung, BTU Cottbus,
Germany.
IFOAM (2012): The IFOAM Norms for Organic Production and Proc-
essing. Version 2012. Available at: http://www.ifoam.org/sites/
default/files/page/files/ifoam_norms_version_august_2012_with_
cover.pdf.
Janssens, I. A., Freibauer, A., Schlamadinger, B., Ceulemans, R.,
Ciais, P. Dolman, A. J., Heimann, M., Nabuurs, G.-J., Smith, P.,
Valentini, R., Schulze, E.-D. (2005): The carbon budget of terres-
trial ecosystems at country-scale—a European case study.
Biogeosciences 2, 15–26.
Janzen, H. H. (2004): Carbon cycling in earth systems—a soil
science perspective. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 104, 399–417.
Janzen, H. H. (2005): Soil carbon: a measure of ecosystem response
in a changing world? Can. J. Soil Sci. 85, 467–480.
Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. A., Coleman, K. (2009): Soil organic
matter: its importance in sustainable agriculture and carbon dioxide
fluxes. Adv. Agron. 101, 1–57.
Kolbe, H. (2005): Prüfung der VDLUFA-Bilanzierungsmethode für
Humus durch langjährige Dauerversuche. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.
51, 221–239.
Kolbe, H. (2010): Site-adjusted organic matter-balance method for
use in arable farming systems. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.173, 678–
691.
Körschens, M., Albert, E., Armbruster, M., Barkusky, D., Baumecker,
M., Behle-Schalk, L., Bischoff, R., Čergan, Z., Ellmer, F., Herbst,
F., Herbst, F., Hoffmann, S., Hofmann, B., Kismanyoky, T., Kubat,
J., Kunzova, E., Lopez-Fando, C., Merbach, I., Merbach, W.,
Pardor, M. T., Rogasik, J., Rühlmann, J., Spiegel, H., Schulz, E.,
Tajnsek, A., Toth, Z., Wegener, H., Zorn, W. (2013): Effect of
mineral and organic fertilization on crop yield, nitrogen uptake,
carbon and nitrogen balances, as well as soil organic carbon
content and dynamics: results from 20 European long-term field
experiments of the twenty-first century. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 59,
1017–1040.
Kutsch, W. L., Aubinet, M., Buchmann, N. Smith, P., Osborne, B.,
Eugster, W., Wattenbach, M., Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E. D.,
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
OM returns to soil under organic farming 11
Tomelleri, E., Ceschia, E., Bernhofer, C., Béziat, P., Carrara, A., Di,
Tomasi, P., Grünwald, T., Jones, M., Magliulo, V., Marloie, O.,
Moureauy, C., Olioso, A., Sanz, A. J., Saunders, M., Søgaard, H.,
Ziegler, W. (2010): The net biome production of full crop rotations
in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 139, 336–345.
Lal, R. (2004): Agricultural activities and the global carbon cycle.
Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 70, 103–116.
Leifeld, J., Fuhrer, J. (2010): Organic farming and soil carbon seques-
tration: What do we really know about the benefits? AMBIO 39,
585–599.
Leifeld, J., Angers, D. A., Chenu, C., Fuhrer, J., Kätterer, T., Powl-
son, D. S. (2013): Organic farming gives no climate change
benefit through soil carbon sequestration. P. Natl. Acad. USA 44,
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1220724110, available at: http://www.pnas.org/
content/110/11/E984.
Leithold, G. (1983): Die Berechnung von fruchtarten- und ertrags-
orientierten Kennziffern für den Bedarf der Böden an organischer
Substanz am Beispiel der Zuckerrübe auf sandigem Lehmboden.
Arch. Acker Pfl. Boden. 27, 59–67.
Leithold, G. (1991): Über den Zusammenhang von Humus und
Stickstoff im System Boden-Pflanze und Möglichkeiten einer quan-
titativen Beschreibung. Wiss. Z. Univ. Halle 3, 67–75.
Leithold, G. (1996): The special qualities of humus and nitrogen
budget in organic farming. Proceedings of the 11th International
Scientific IFOAM Conference, August 11–15, 1996, Copenhagen,
Denmark, pp. 52–55.
Leithold, G., The, Dang, N. (1990): Bodenfruchtbarkeitsversuch
Seehausen, Dauerfeldversuche. Akademie der Landwirtschafts-
wissenschaften, Berlin, Germany, pp. 169–175.
Leithold, G., Hülsbergen, K.-J., Michel, D., Schönmeier, H. (1997):
Humusbilanzierung—Methoden und Anwendung als Agrar-Um-
weltindikator. Initiativen zum Umweltschutz. Deutsche Bundes-
stiftung Umwelt, Zeller Verlag, Osnabrück, Germany, pp. 43–54.
Leithold, G., Brock, C., Hülsbergen, K.-J., Hoyer, U. (2007):
Anpassung der Humusbilanzierung an die Bedingungen des ökolo-
gischen Landbaus, in :Bewertung ökologischer Betriebssysteme—
Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Stoffkreisläufe, Biodiversität, in Hülsbergen,
K.-J., Döhler, H. (eds.): Bewertung ökologischer Betriebs-
systeme—Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Stoffkreisläufe, Biodiversität. KTBL-
Schrift 458, KTBL, Darmstadt, Germany, pp. 24–50.
Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U.
(2002): Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science
296, 1694–1697.
Maillard, E., Angers, D. (2014): Animal manure application and soil
organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 20,
666–679.
Moritz, C., Leithold, G. (1990): Kombinationsversuch Seehausen,
Dauerfeldversuche. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften,
Berlin, Germany, pp. 177–183.
Munro, T. L., Cook, H. F., Lee, H. C. (2002): Sustainability indicators
used to compare properties of organic and conventionally
managed topsoils. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 20, 201–214.
Nannen, D., Herrmann, A., Loges, R., Dittert, K., Taube, F. (2011):
Recovery of mineral fertilizer N and slurry N in continuous silage
maize using 15N and difference methods. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.
89, 269–280.
Piorr, A., Werner, W. (1999): Nachhaltige Landwirtschaftssysteme im
Vergleich–Bewertung anhand von Umweltindikatoren. Nachhaltige
Landwirtschaft–Wege zum neuen Leitbild: Arbeiten der DLG 195,
121–149.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R. (2005):
Environmental, energetic and economic comparison of organic
and conventional farming systems. Bio. Sci. 55, 573–582.
www.plant-soil.com
12 Leithold, Hülsbergen, Brock
Powlson, D. (1993): Understanding the soil nitrogen cycle. Soil Use
Manage. 9, 86–94.
Rauhe, K. (1987): Effects of organic manuring and cropping on soil
humus and fertility. Proceedings of the 4th International CIEC
Symposium, 11–14 May 1987, Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 55–
76.
Rauhe, K., Hoberück, J., Siegert, B. (1987): Untersuchungen zu
langfristigen Wirkungsmechanismen von Stallmist- und Mineral-N
im System Pflanze–Boden. Arch. Acker Pfl. Boden. 31, 711–718.
Sauerbeck, D. (1992): Funktionen und Bedeutung der organischen
Substanzen für die Bodenfruchtbarkeit—ein Überblick. Berichte
über Landwirtschaft, 206. Sonderheft, Verlag Paul Parey, Bonn,
Germany, pp. 13–29.
Schmid, H., Braun, M., Hülsbergen, K.-J. (2013): Treibhausgasbi-
lanzen und ökologische Nachhaltigkeit der Pflanzenproduktion—
Ergebnisse aus dem Netzwerk der Pilotbetriebe, in Hülsbergen,
K.-J., Rahmann, G. (eds.): Klimawirkungen und Nachhaltigkeit
ökologischer und konventioneller Betriebssysteme—Untersu-
chungen in einem Netzwerk von Pilotbetrieben. Thünen Report 8,
Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 259–293.
Schrumpf, M., Schulze, E. D., Kaiser, K., Schumacher, J. (2011):
How accurately can soil organic carbon stocks and stock changes
be quantified by soil inventories? Biogeosciences 8, 1193–1212.
Schulz, F., Brock, C., Schmidt, H., Franz, K.-P., Leithold, G. (2014):
Development of soil organic matter stocks under different farm
ª 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2015, 178, 4–12
types and tillage systems in the organic arable farming experiment
Gladbacherhof. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 60, 313–326.
Stevens, W., Hoeft, R., Mulvaney, R. (2005): Fate of Nitrogen-15 in a
long-term nitrogen rate study. Agron. J. 97, 1046–1053.
The Dang, N. (1990): Untersuchungen zum Einfluss langjähriger
ackerbaulicher Maßnahmen auf die Ausprägung wichtiger Boden-
fruchtbarkeitseigenschaften sowie zu Wechselbeziehungen
zwischen Boden, Ertrag und Qualität der Produkte auf der Basis
von Ergebnissen des Bodenfruchtbarkeitsversuches Seehausen.
PhD thesis, University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Triberti, L., Nastri, A., Giordani, G., Comellini, F., Baldoni, G., Toderi,
G. (2008): Can mineral and organic fertilization help sequestrate
carbon dioxide in cropland? Eur. J. Agron. 29, 13–20.
Van Dijk, H. (1982): Survey of Dutch Soil Organic Matter Research
With Regard to Humification and Degradation Rates in Arable
Land, in Boels, D., Davies, D. B., Johnston, A. E. (eds.): Soil
Degradation. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp.
133–144.
Wessolek, G., Kaupenjohann, M., Dominik, P., Ilg, K., Schmitt, A.,
Zeitz, J., Gahre, F., Ellerbrock, R., Utermann, J., Düwel, O., Siebner,
C. (2008): Ermittlung von Optimalgehalten an organischer Substanz
landwirtschaftlich genutzter Böden nach § 17 (2) Nr. 7 BBodSchG.
Available at: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/
medien/publikation/long/3707.pdf (accessed November 05, 2013).
www.plant-soil.com