quantifying sustainability of dairy farms with the ... · quantifying sustainability of dairy farms...

1

Quantifying sustainability of dairyfarms with the DAIRYMAN-Sustainability-Index (DSI)

Elsäßer et al., 2012

Authors

Martin Elsaesser, Thomas Jilg, Katja HerrmannLAZBW Aulendorf (Ge)

Jeff BoonenLycée Agricole Ettelbruck (Lu)

Lies DebruyneILVO Merelbeke (Be)

Scott LaidlawAFBI Belfast (Northern Ireland)

Frans AartsWUR Plant Research International (NL)

Elsaesser et al., 2015

2


The problems with sustainability

Elsäßer et al., 20124Floris Oudshoorn (c) Comic House.nl

Discrepenciesbetween farmers, thepublic and science.

How can wemeasuresustainability?

Are sustainabilityparameters the samefor differentregions?

3


There is a need to evaluate existing dairyfarming practices considering that:

5

Livestock´s contribution toclimate change in CO2

equivalent: 18 %

Livestock’s share in methaneemissions: 37 %

Livestocks´s share inanthropogenic nitrous oxide:

65 %(cit. by Gerber and Steinfeld, 2010)

Floris Oudshoorn (c) Comic House.nl


And:

- different environment protection standards incountries and regions- strong milk prices variations- the end of the quota system- increase of incomes outside of agriculture- decrease of young farmers who are educatedto take over the farms

4


Floris Oudshoorn (c) Comic House.nl

The Dairyman - Project

7

EU-Interreg IVb NorthWestEurope

Dec. 2009 – Aug. 2013



The Netherlands

Wallonie

Luxemburg

Germany

Northern-Ireland

Ireland

Pays de laLoire

Flanders

Nord-Pas deCalais

Bretagne

Participating Regions

NordWestEuropa

8Elsaesser et al., 2015

7 countries, 14 partners

5


The PartnersLeadpartner: University Wageningen (WUR PlantResearch International)Institutes for science and applied sciences: AFBIBelfast (NI); Teagasc (Ire); CWRA (Wallonien); ILVO(Merelbeke, Fl); LAZBW AulendorfBreeding associations: Institut d`Elevage (F)Agricultural chambers: Bretagne (F), Pays de la Loire(F), Nord Pas de Calais (F), Province Antwerpen (NL)Agricultural school: Lycée Agricole (Ettelbruck, Lu)

Elsäßer et al., 2014Elsaesser et al., 2015


The pilot farm network127 farms in 10 regions

Flanders: BFWallonie: BWBretagne: FBPays de la Loire: FLNord-Pas de Calais: FNIreland: IRNorthern-Ireland: INBaden-Württemberg: GELuxemburg: LUThe Netherlands: NL


• Data collection from 2009 - 2012 followingconsistent rules to deeper insights ineconomic, ecological and social aspects offarms in the regions

• A none representative selection of farmsin the region

• Choice of farms according to theirdisposition to cooperate in the project


6


Pilot dairy farms in the participatingregions are different

In forage areaIn herd sizeIn milk productionIn economic situation

11

And:The environmental indicators do not have thesame relevance in all regions!



Phosphorus

BF BW FB FL FN GE IN IR LU NL

Air qualityammonia 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 5

GHG 4 5 3 3 1 2 5 5 2 3

Water quality

Nitrate 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 4 3

Phosphorus 4 2 3 2 1 2 5 3 3 5

Pesticides 3 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 2 3

Soil qualityErosion 3 3 2 1 5 2 1 1 3 1

Fertility 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2

Biodiversity 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 1 4 2

Index: 5 = very high relevance; 1 = low relevance

Environmental Priorities in the Dairyman regions

7


Too many singleparameters.

Sustainability aspects ofdairy farming should beobserved as a whole!

Greenhousegases Clean water

and air

13

Socialaspects

Energyconsumption

Economics


Existing sustainability evaluation systems

RISE (Grenz et al., 2009)

REPRO (Christen et al., 2009)

IDEA (Zahm et al., 2008)

KSNL (Breitschuh et al., 2008)

MOTIFS (Meul et al., 2008; De Mey et al., 2011)others

None of these methods fulfilled completely ourcriteria, therefore we opted to create a new index,fulfilling the specific DAIRYMAN requirements = DSI


8


Stages in the DSI development process

1. Agreement on weighting of the ecological, economicand social aspects of sustainability

2. Choice of sustainability indicators3. Deciding on the contribution of each indicator within

the appropriate sustainability aspect (scoring)4. Benchmarking (Determination for targets to attain of

each indicator)Very long discussions


1. Agreement in the system approach

Ecology

Economy Social aspects100 % 100 %

100 %


9


Three Factor groups and 100 points each

Maximum

Social aspects 100

Ecology 100

Economy 100

The sum is the DSIElsaesser et al., 2015


2. Choice of DSI parameters

Elsaesser et al., 2015Elsaesser et al., 2015

Parameters should be:

Calculated or measured in the pilot farmsIndependentCharacteristic for dairy farming

List not yet completed

10


2. Choice of DSI parameters

Income/kg milk N balance/ha Education

Income/family LabourUnit (fLU) N balance/kg milk Working

conditions

Total farm income N efficiency % Continuity of farm

Dependency onsubsidies P balance/ha Social role/image

Exposure to pricefluctuations P balance/kg milk

P efficiency %

Agri-env. pay./farm

GHG emissions

100% 100% 100%

Economy Ecology Social aspects

Elsaesser et al., 2015Elsaesser et al., 2015


3. DSI parameters and scoring

Scoring: in the team and with a questionaire for morethan 100 farmers and farm advisorsThe scoring was not that easy and led to muchdiscussionThe scoring gave a deeper insight in the differentproblems of dairy farming in different countriesThe process gave the team members a very much betterview into the project structure and the real problems ofdairy farming

11


3. DSI parameters and scoring

Income/kg milk 16% N balance/ha 15% Education 22%

Income/fLU 34% N balance/kg milk 11%Workingconditions 42%

Total farm income 22% N efficiency % 13% Continuity of farm 16%Dependency onsubsidies 10% P balance/ha 11% Social role/image 20%Exposure to pricefluctuations 18% P balance/kg milk 8%

P efficiency % 10%

Agri-env. pay./farm 10%GHG emissions 22%

100% 100% 100%

Economy Ecology Social aspects


Economy

12


Some exemplary results


Economic situation of the pilot farms


Inco

me

€/10

0kg

milk

Income and productivity of family workers

Prod

uctiv

ityin

kg

milk

per

fLU

Regions

13


Price fluctuations and Farm incomeIncome development in 2009 and 2010

Milchpreis in den Dairyman-Regionen

Production costs

Increase of ~ 5 €/100kg Milk in 2010

Costs for production arerelatively constant

25(Boonen et al., 2012)(Boonen et al., 2012)


Market fluctuations and farm income (2)Einkommensentwicklungin den Jahren 2009/2010

N.B. With the income the farmer has to pay:Family labour, income taxes, own capital (opportunity costs), quota costs

(Boonen et al., 2012)(Boonen et al., 2012)

14


Influence of milk price

Income in € per family working unit – boxplots only of Dutch pilot farms



Parameters for Ecology1. N balance (kg · ha-1): N input minus N output at farm level

2. N balance per kg milk (kg · 1000 kg-1 milk): N input minusN output at farm level

3. N efficiency (%): N output per N input at farm level

4. P balance per ha (kg · ha-1): P input minus P output at farm level

5. P balance per kg milk (kg · 1000 kg-1 milk): P input minusP output at farm level

6. P efficiency (%): P output per P input at farm level

7. Payments for environmental activities: agro-environmentalpayments (€ · ha-1) e.g. for cultivation of nature protection land,subsidies for no use of pesticides, (etc.)

8. Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-eq · Mg milk-1):GHG emissions for the dairy component of the farm


15


Pilot farms – Nitrogen Balance kg ha-1

(Average 2009 – 2011)

29Elsäßer et al., 2014Elsaesser et al., 2015


-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

BF BW FB FL FN GE IN IR LU NL

Phos

phor

us i

n kg

/ha

Regions

P-balances of pilot farms in differentregions in kg P ha-1 (Average 2009 – 2011)


16


Difficult to measure, subjective!!!Chosen indicators:

Education of farmersWorking conditionsFarm continuitySocial role and image

Development of a questionaire (multiple choice), everypilot farmer had to answer

31

Do you feel you have sufficient time for activities beside the farm (family, hobbies, etc.)?Validation

Not at all 0Very limited 0,25Average 0,5Most of the time 0,75Yes, always 1

Social aspects



1. Education

1.1 Basic educationWhat is the highest level of education of the farmer?

1.2 Training coursesHow many training days have staff and family workershad per year in total (number of days per person)?

Basic education: max. 11 pointsTrainings courses: max. 11 points

Weighting Education: max. 22 pointsAverage survey: max. 13 points


17


2. Working conditions:weighting

Work load: max. 6 pointsPersonal satisfaction: max. 19 pointsHolidays: max. 6 pointsFree time: max. 6 pointsHealth issues: max. 5 points

Weighting working conditions: max. 42 points


2. Working conditions:2.3 Holidays in days per year

Q10 (year 2010): 3 days/yearQ90 (year 2010): 20 days/yearWeighting: max. 6 points


18


4. Social role and image

How many people visit your farm per year (e.g. farmwalks, open days, etc.)?How many means / instruments of communication /publicity do you use to reach general public / improvemutual understanding (e.g. open days, farm walks,information boards, website, farm shop, farmers’markets, research / demonstration projects)?How is your relation to other farmers in your area?How are you / your farm business accepted by theregional population?

Each question: max. 5 pointsWeighting social role: max. 20 pointsAverage survey: max. 13 points

Elsaesser and Herrmann 2013Elsaesser et al., 2015

Elsäßer et al., 2012Elsäßer et al., 2014

Pilotfarms – Social aspects

Do you feel stressed?always

often

sometimes

No, never

Only seldom inspecial times

19


Are you content with your income?

No

Sufficient

good


Total farm income (€ family labour unit-1)


Are you content with your income?

No

Sufficient

good


20


4. Benchmarking

N-balance in kg N ha-1

• Are the values high?• Or too high?• Are they unavoidable?• Do we have the right references?


Our agreement:

We have chosen the 10 and 90% quantils inthe year 2010 of all Dairyman pilot farms asbenchmarks


21


N-balance (kg N ha-1)

Q10 (year 2010): 88 kg N/haQ90 (year 2010): 270 kg N/ha

Weighting: max. 15 pointsAverage survey: max. 23 points



Greenhouse gas emissions(1000 kg CO2-eq t milk-1)

Q10 (year 2010): 932 kg CO2-eq/1000 kg milkQ90 (year 2010): 1427 kg CO2-eq/1000 kg milk

Weighting: max. 22 pointsAverage survey: max. 15 points


Minimum points

Maximum points

22


Statistical results of the indicatorsof 127 DAIRYMAN pilot farms (2010)

Indicator Min.value

10%quantil

90%quantil

Max.value

EconomyIncome at dairy level (€ ·100 kg-1 milk) -7.62 2.65 23.79 34.88Income at dairy level (€ · family labour unit-1) -69427 13323 117466 202916Total farm income (€ · family labour unit-1) -69427 18081 109313 188542Dependency on subsidies (%) -33 22 138 715Exposure to price fluctuations (%) 42 53 104 149EcologyN balance (kg · ha-1) 17.1 82.4 268.0 373.3N balance (kg · 1000 kg-1 milk) 3.85 9.09 34.34 60.94N efficiency (%) 11.79 19.41 47.54 64.40P balance (kg ·ha-1) -16.31 -4.62 17.88 43.90P balance (kg · 1000 kg-1 milk) -4.56 -0.63 2.97 8.53P efficiency (%) 19.45 35.89 157.88 411.60Agroenvironmental payments (€ · ha-1) 0.00 0.00 122.55 317.95Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-eq · Mg-1 milk) 703.80 932.30 1427.66 1816.89

Social aspectsHolidays (days · year-1) 0 0 20 35Working time (hours· fLU-1) 330 1952 3310 5304



Example of calculating the scoresfor “economy” with the DSI


23


Calculating the scoring pointsfor economy with the DSI

Score Income dairy(€ 100 kg milk-1)

Income dairy(€ fLU-1)

Farm income(€ fLU-1)

Dependencyon subsidies

(%)

Exposure toprice

fluctuations(%)

Minimum = 0 < 2.65 < 13.326 < 19.184 > 135.29 > 103.65

Medium = 0.5 13.22 65.462 66.369 77.51 78.13Maximum = 1 > 23.79 > 117567 > 113553 < 19.73 < 52.61

Points (p) max. 16 points max. 34 points max. 22 points max. 10 p. max. 18 p.

Real farmresult 21.7 114400 75800 142 49

Score 0.9 0.97 0.6 0 1

Weighted 0.9*16=14.4 0.97*34=32.98 0.6*22.5=13.5 0*9.5=0 1*18=18

Total score 14.4 points 33 points 13.5 points 0 points 18 points

Sum of scoring points for economy in total: 78.9 points out of 100 possible points

+ + + +



How can we use the DSI?

The DSI-System is a tool in order to compare theDairyman pilot farms and is not a tool formeasuring the “true and real sustainability“.


The DSI-System helps farmers and farmadvisors to gain a deeper insight into the farmstructure and to collect data.

24


Sustainability Factors

0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 100,00

1

%

Social aspectsEcologyEconomics

Total S-Value:160,80

(max. 300)

Farm:GE1

Target line (66% of implementation)


DSI


As an example: the detailedanalysis German pilot farmIndicator farm value scoring max.

pointspoints per

farm scale points

Income € 100 kg milk-1 9.5 0.32 16 5.2

Income € familiy worker-1 123038 1 34 34Farm income € family labour unit-1 174537 1 22 22Dependency on subsidies % 0.4 0.85 10 8.5Exposure to price fluctuations % 0.7 0.58 18 10.4Total economy 0.8 100 80.1N balance kg ha-1 146 0.66 15 9.8

N balance kg 1000 kg milk-1 20.1 0.55 11 6N efficiency % 22.6 0.13 13 1.7P balance kg ha-1 20 0.01 11 0.1P balance kg 1000 kg milk-1 3 0 8 0P efficiency % 25.8 0 10 0Agroenvironmental payments € ha-1 74.4 0.61 10 6.1

Greenhouse gas emissions 1000 kg CO2-eq t milk-1 973 0.92 22 20.2Total ecology 0.44 100 43.9Education 0.75 20 15Working conditions 0.67 39 26.3Continousity of farm 1 14 14Social role and image 0.63 18 11.3Employment 0.6 9 5.4Total social aspects 0.72 100 71.9


25


Yearly development of the DSI as anexample of a German pilot farm

Ökonom

ie

EinkommenMilchviehbereichEinkommenjeFamilien-AK(Milchvieh)

Betriebseinkommen(gesamtbetrieblich)AbhängigkeitvonSubventionen

Sensibilitätggü.PreisschwankungenSummeÖkonomie

P-Bilanz(gesamtbetrieblich)P-Bilanz(gesamtbetrieblich)

P-Effizienz(gesamtbetrieblich)Ausgleichszahlungfüröko.Leistungen

SummeÖkologie

Soziales

Aus-undFortbildungArbeitsbedingungen

FortbestehendesBetriebes,HofnachfolgeSozialeRolleundImage

SummeSoziales

Ökologie

N-Bilanz(gesamtbetrieblich)N-Bilanz(gesamtbetrieblich)

N-Effizienz(gesamtbetrieblich)

Treibhausgasemissionen

2009 2010 2011



Comparisons between farms

Farm A Farm B Farm C


26


Comparisonsbetweenregions (2010)

Social aspects

Ecology

Economy



“Development of sustainability“ inregions


DSI

27


The DSI can help answer specificquestions:

For example: Why should a farmer changehis P-balance?



DSI econ and P balance?


28


Conclusions

The Dairyman Sustainability Index (DSI)gives a better overview of the farm situationcompared with single indicatorsThe DSI allows deeper insight into the farmspecific situation and makes progress visibleThe DSI gives the possibility to comparefarms in and between regions


Final remarks

• Indicators vary between dairy farming systems• Good economic situation and high environ-

mental standards be achieved at the same time• There is a need to optimize the production

systems. Aspects can be:- better herd management,- reduction in costs,- optimisation of animal nutrition,- better fertilization management


29


The DSI installation processwas a creative and very fruitful process in ourgroupgave a better insight and a better understandingof all questions raised by the partnersis not yet finished



Thanks to all partners for 4 years ofvery good cooperation

Dairyman 2009 – 2013

30


Thanks to you in the audience for listening!

quantifying sustainability of dairy farms with the ... · quantifying sustainability of dairy farms...

Documents