frans aarts
DESCRIPTION
Plantekongres 2005, Denmark. Frans Aarts. Nutrient balances: experiences from The Netherlands. Wageningen University and Research Centre (W-UR) Plant Research International. Netherlands agricultural land: 1.9 million ha animal production: 8 billion euro - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Frans Aarts
Wageningen University and Research Centre (W-UR)
Plant Research International
Plantekongres 2005, Denmark
Nutrient balances:
experiences from The Netherlands
Agricultural facts
Netherlands agricultural land: 1.9
million ha animal production: 8
billion euro
24,000 dairy farms (grass, maize)
6,000 pigs/chicken farms (no land)
Denmark agricultural land: 2.7 million
ha animal production: 5 billion
euro
Agricultural facts
Netherlands agricultural land: 1.9
million ha animal production: 8
billion euro
24,000 dairy farms (grass, maize)
6,000 pigs/chicken farms (no land)
Denmark agricultural land: 2.7 million
ha animal production: 5 billion
euro
Livestock density
high very high
Manure-N (1997)
Netherlands:
- 258 kg N/ha on average
- 288 kg N/ha on dairy farms
Denmark:
- 90 kg N/ha on average
Effect of livestock density on N balance
(Denmark)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300
N i husdyrgødning til markkg N/ha
N-o
ve
rsk
ud
be
dri
ft,
kg
N/h
a
Konv. planteavl u. dyr
Konv. planteavl m. sl.svin
Konv. svin inde
Konv. svin friland
Konv. kvæg
Øko. kvæg
Øko. svin friland
Effect of livestock density on N balance (EU, le
Gall) N surplus
0
100
200
300
400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Milk (kg/ha)
Intensive systems of Nor Northern Europe
Extensive systems
Intensive and sustainable systems of western France
Intensive systems of Atlantique Area
7500 kg milk= 170 kg N-manure
Effect of livestock density on N balance (le
Gall) N surplus
0
100
200
300
400
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Milk (kg/ha)
Intensive systems of Nor Northern Europe
Extensive systems
Intensive and sustainable systems of western France
Intensive systems of Atlantique Area
Dutch average
Effect of livestock density on N balance
N surplus/ha (= input – output)
manure-N/ha
Nitrates directive
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
EU nitrates directive
190 kg
Nitrates directive N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
EU nitrates directive Dutch dairy farms
288 kg
190 kg
355 kg
Effect of livestock density on N surplus
N surplus
manure-N/ha
Individual farms
Effect of livestock density on N surplus
N surplus
manure-N/ha
Individual farms
On farm level: livestock density is a weak
indicator for N surplus
N-surplus as indicator for environmental
effectsQuality water
N surplus/ha
excellent
bad
N-surplus as indicator for
environmental effectsQuality water
N surplus/ha
peat, grassland
average
dry sand, arablebad
excellent
N-surplus as indicator for
environmental effects
N surplus/ha
peat, grassland
average
light sand, arable
desired
acceptable
Quality water
N-surplus as indicator for
environmental effects
N surplus/ha
peat, grassland
average
light sand, arable
desired
acceptable
At farm level N-surplus can be a good indicator for environmental
performance
Quality water
Surplus N related to nitrate leaching (light
sandy soils)
0
40
80
120
160
0 100 200 300 400
Surplus farm (kg N/ha)
(mg/l)
2000 2001 2002
Surplus N (1998, kg/ha)
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
clay peat sand
Acceptable:
250 ? peat
130 light sand
Surplus N (1998, kg/ha)
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
clay peat sand
Acceptable:
250 ? peat
130 light sand
Strong reduction of surpluses is
needed
How to reduce surpluses?
limit to livestock density: animal accounting
or Limit to surpluses: mineral accounting
Limit to livestock density
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
Reducing livestock density190 kg
288 kg
Limit to livestock density
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
190 kg
Limit to livestock density
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
190 kg
Not all farms below acceptable level
Limit to the surplus of N
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg
Improving management
288 kg
190 kg
Limit to the surplus of N
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg 288 kg
190 kg
Limit to the surplus of N
N surplus
manure-N/ha170 kg 288 kg
All farms below acceptable level
190 kg
Mineral accounting, with limited surpluses
Advantages:- environmental quality is better guaranteed- more attractive if land is expensive and animal
density is high
Disadvantages:- High cost to control- Acceptance of EU?
How to reduce surpluses?
Improve N-turnover in farm components: less inputs needed
herd
manurecrop
soil
feedMilk/meat
fertilizer
80%53%
18%
71%
1987 200?
De MarkeDe MarkeAn experimental farm on light sandy soil, with an average intensity of milk production and very tight environmental standards
How to reduce surpluses?
herd
manurecrop
soil
feedMilk/meat
fertilizer
80%
53%
18%
71%
23%
92%70%
93%
Improved N-turnover De Marke
Results 1993-1998
Mineral fertiliser-N : 70 kg/ha reduction of 70 %
Purchased feed: 2,000 kg dm/ha Reduction of 60 %
Surplus N: 150 kg/ha
Results 2004
Mineral fertiliser-N : 0 kg/ha reduction of 100 %
Purchased feed: 2,000 kg dm/ha Reduction of 60 %
Surplus N: 100 kg/ha
How to convince farmers?
Father G. van den Elsen (founder of Rabo-bank, Campina etc.): “It is impossible to convince farmers only with books and journals. The truth should be pumped into their heads by clear, visible examples”. (Sociologie der Boeren, 1918)
1999 2005
Cows Cows && Opportunities Opportunitiescommercial intensive dairy farms, demonstrating possibilities to
realise low surpluses
Characteristics of pilot farms
1998 2003 Difference
Quota (kg milk) 554,500 703,000 +148,500 Farm area (ha) 41 50 +9 Quota per ha 14.300 15.000 +700 Cows 69 80 +11 Milk per cow (kg/jr) 8,000 8,700 +700
Environmental performance pilot farms
1998 2002 Difference
input N: - mineral fertilisers 180 85 -95 - purchased feed 160 150 -10 surplus N 266 181 -85 input P: - mineral fertilisers 13 4 -9 - purchased feed 25 23 -2 surplus P 18 9 -9
Income N surplus
Measures to reduce surplus
Economics
Income N surplus
measures
Pilot farms
Economics
Income N surplus
measures
Economics
2,500
euro
Pilot farms
Dutch Mineral Accounting System (1998 –
2006)
Input
concentrateslivestockroughagemanure
artificial fertilizer
Output
milk, livestockroughagemanure
Farm gate surplus
Farm gate balance
Dutch Mineral Accounting System (1998 –
2006)
Input
concentrateslivestockroughagemanure
artificial fertilizer
Output
milk, livestockroughagemanure
Farm gate surplus
Farm gate balance
About 70 kg N below real surplus (including deposition, clover etc.)
Permitted farm gate surpluses (kg
N/ha)1998 2005
Grassland* 330 180
Arable land* 175 100
* On light sandy soils 40 kg less
Real N-surplus of very specialized dairy
farms (kg/ha)1998 2002
clay 339 209
peat 344 238
sand 375 197
average 355 205
Average annual decrease: 38 kg = 11%
(-150)
Farmgate N-surplus of all dairy farms
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
year
N s
urp
lus
(kg h
a-1)
sand clay sand, leaching-sensitive peat
MINAS
Save area
P2O5 -surplus of very specialized dairy farms
(kg/ha) 1998 2002
clay 52 33
peat 62 40
sand 67 23
average 60 29
Average annual decrease: 8 kg = 13%
(-31)
The future
We love mineral accounting, but European Court of Justice does not
The future
We love mineral accounting, but European Court of Justice does not
We will introduce application standards for fertilizers in 2006
The future
We love mineral accounting, but European Court of Justice does not
We will introduce application standards for fertilizers in 2006
We expect that costs will increase for farmers , but costs for government will be lower
The future
We love mineral accounting, but European Court of Justice does not
We will introduce application standards for fertilizers in 2006
We expect that costs will increase for farmers , but costs for government will be lower
We hope that in the future a mineral accounting system can be reintroduced, because nutrient surplus is the better indicator for environmental quality
Thanks!