Benchmarking the economic, environmental and societal performance of Dutch dairy farms aiming at internal recycling of nutrients

Several dairy farms in the Netherlands aim at reducing their environmental impact by improving the internal nutrient cycle (INC) at farm level. Practices to improve nutrient cycling at these INC farms, however, might not only reduce the environmental impact on-farm, but alter also the off-farm environmental impact associated with supply chain processes (production and transport) related to inputs entering the farm, such as purchased feed or fertilizer or the economic or societal performance of these farms. We compared, therefore, a set of sustainability indicators of nine INC farms with a group of benchmark farms, comparable in terms of farm size, intensity and site-specific circumstances. This benchmark group was composed using statistical matching to exclude the effect of these characteristics on economic, environmental and societal performance. Economic indicators used were: farm income per unpaid annual working unit and the costs to revenues ratio. Environmental indicators used were derived from a cradle-to-farm-gate life cycle assessment: land occupation (LO), non-renewable energy use (NREU), global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and eutrophication potential (EP), expressed per kg fat-and-protein-corrected milk (FPCM). In addition, we quantified the soil content of organic carbon and phosphorus, and the soil nitrogen supply. Societal indicators used were: payments for agri-environmental measures, grazing hours and penalties for aberrant milk composition. Results showed that INC farms had a lower non-renewable energy use per kg FPCM, higher soil organic carbon content and received higher annual payments for agri-environmental measures, whereas economic and other environmental, societal indicators did not differed. Furthermore, we demonstrated the need for a sound benchmark to assess the effect of INC-farming on the economic, environmental and societal performance. Statistical matching enabled us to define, for each INC farm, a benchmark group with similar farm characteristics, which are known to affect sustainability indicators. Observed differences in sustainability indicators between both farm groups, therefore, truly resulted from aiming at internal nutrient cycling, and not from differences in other farm characteristics.

[1]  Roderick J A Little,et al.  A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non‐response , 2010, International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique.

[2]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Landscape asymmetry of soil organic matter as a source of agro-ecosystem resilience , 2011 .

[3]  J. Bouma,et al.  A whole-farm strategy to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen. , 2008, Journal of environmental quality.

[4]  M. Sonneveld,et al.  Assessment of N and P status at the landscape scale using environmental models and measurements. , 2012, Environmental pollution.

[5]  Ab F. Groen,et al.  Utilization of local feed resources by dairy cattle : perspectives of environmentally balanced production systems : symposium proceedings Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences (WIAS) Wageningen, the Netherlands , 1996 .

[6]  G. J. Monteny,et al.  Forfaitaire waarden voor gasvormige stikstofverliezen uit stallen en mestopslagen; gew. druk , 2000 .

[7]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of products : guide and backgrounds (Part 2) , 1992 .

[8]  D. Rubin.  Matched Sampling for Causal Effects: Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies , 1973 .

[9]  C. Rotz,et al.  Whole-farm perspectives of nutrient flows in grassland agriculture , 2005 .

[10]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of conventional and organic farming , 2000 .

[11]  M. D. Vries,et al.  Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments , 2010 .

[12]  L. Boumans,et al.  Results of 10 years of monitoring nitrogen in the sandy regions in The Netherlands. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  Ainsworth Donovan,et al.  Thematic strategy for soil protection , 2014 .

[14]  A. Mishra,et al.  Factors affecting returns to labor and management on U.S. dairy farms , 2001 .

[15]  M. Sonneveld,et al.  Quantification of C and N stocks in grassland topsoils in a Dutch region dominated by dairy farming , 2010, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[16]  I.J.M. de Boer,et al.  Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms , 2009 .

[17]  D. W. Reeves.  The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems , 1997 .

[18]  Markus Lips,et al.  On the link between economic and environmental performance of Swiss dairy farms of the alpine area , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  I J M de Boer,et al.  Invited review: associations between variables of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[20]  S. Schneider,et al.  Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report , 2008 .

[21]  Chris J. Hodgson,et al.  Interactions among agricultural production and other ecosystem services delivered from European temperate grassland systems , 2010 .

[22]  Tommy Dalgaard,et al.  Potential greenhouse gas emission reductions in soybean farming: a combined use of Life Cycle Assessment and Data Envelopment Analysis , 2013 .

[23]  Marcello D'Orazio,et al.  Statistical Matching: Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[24]  A. Veldkamp,et al.  Refining soil survey information for a Dutch soil series using land use history , 2002 .

[25]  I. D. Boer,et al.  Nutrient balances of livestock production systems in The Netherlands. , 1996 .

[26]  A. Hospido,et al.  Benchmarking environmental and operational parameters through eco-efficiency criteria for dairy farms. , 2011, Science of the Total Environment.

[27]  H. Vrolijk,et al.  Integration of small area estimation and mapping techniques; Tool for Regional Studies , 2005 .

[28]  A. Bodini,et al.  Assessing farm sustainability. An application with the Italian FADN sample. , 2012 .

[29]  Johan Bouma,et al.  Chapter Six – The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation and the Associated Wicked Sustainability Problems in Agriculture , 2011 .

[30]  H.C.J. Vrolijk,et al.  Sample of Dutch FADN 2007; design principles and quality of the sample of agricultural and horticultural holdings. , 2009 .

[31]  G. Huylenbroeck,et al.  Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency , 2007 .

[32]  Amar Gupta,et al.  Data Fusion Through Statistical Matching , 2015 .

[33]  O. Oenema,et al.  Changes in the soil phosphorus status of agricultural land in the Netherlands during the 20th century , 2010 .

[34]  Nancy D. Ruggles,et al.  A Strategy for Merging and Matching Microdata Sets , 1974 .

[35]  Gumersindo Feijoo,et al.  Further potentials in the joint implementation of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.