1 / 50

Frans Aarts

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

tekli
Download Presentation

Frans Aarts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plantekongres 2005, Denmark Frans Aarts Nutrient balances: experiences from The Netherlands Wageningen University and Research Centre (W-UR) Plant Research International

  2. 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

  3. 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 very high high Livestock density

  4. Manure-N (1997) • Netherlands: • 258 kg N/ha on average • 288 kg N/ha on dairy farms • Denmark: • - 90 kg N/ha on average

  5. Effect of livestock density on N balance (Denmark)

  6. Effect of livestock density on N balance (EU, le Gall) 7500 kg milk= 170 kg N-manure

  7. Effect of livestock density on N balance (le Gall) Dutch average

  8. Effect of livestock density on N balance N surplus/ha (= input – output) manure-N/ha

  9. Nitrates directive N surplus 190 kg 170 kg EU nitrates directive manure-N/ha

  10. Nitrates directive N surplus 355 kg 190 kg 170 kg EU nitrates directive 288 kg manure-N/ha Dutch dairy farms

  11. Effect of livestock density on N surplus Individual farms N surplus manure-N/ha

  12. Effect of livestock density on N surplus Individual farms N surplus On farm level: livestock density is a weak indicator for N surplus manure-N/ha

  13. N-surplus as indicator for environmental effects Quality water excellent bad N surplus/ha

  14. N-surplus as indicator for environmental effects Quality water excellent peat, grassland average dry sand, arable bad N surplus/ha

  15. N-surplus as indicator for environmental effects Quality water desired peat, grassland average light sand, arable N surplus/ha acceptable

  16. N-surplus as indicator for environmental effects Quality water At farm level N-surplus can be a good indicator for environmental performance desired peat, grassland average light sand, arable N surplus/ha acceptable

  17. (mg/l) 160 120 80 40 0 0 100 200 300 400 Surplus farm (kg N/ha) 2000 2001 2002 Surplus N related to nitrate leaching (light sandy soils)

  18. Surplus N (1998, kg/ha) Acceptable: 250 ? peat 130 light sand

  19. Surplus N (1998, kg/ha) Acceptable: 250 ? peat 130 light sand Strong reduction of surpluses is needed

  20. How to reduce surpluses? • limit to livestock density: animal accounting or • Limit to surpluses: mineral accounting

  21. Limit to livestock density N surplus Reducing livestock density 190 kg 288 kg 170 kg manure-N/ha

  22. Limit to livestock density N surplus 190 kg 170 kg manure-N/ha

  23. Limit to livestock density N surplus 190 kg Not all farms below acceptable level 170 kg manure-N/ha

  24. Limit to the surplus of N N surplus Improving management 190 kg 288 kg 170 kg manure-N/ha

  25. Limit to the surplus of N N surplus 190 kg 288 kg 170 kg manure-N/ha

  26. Limit to the surplus of N N surplus 190 kg All farms below acceptable level 288 kg 170 kg manure-N/ha

  27. 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?

  28. How to reduce surpluses? Improve N-turnover in farm components: less inputs needed feed 18% Milk/meat herd 71% crop manure 80% 53% soil fertilizer

  29. 1987 200? De MarkeAn experimental farm on light sandy soil, with an average intensity of milk production and very tight environmental standards

  30. How to reduce surpluses? Improved N-turnover De Marke feed 18% 23% Milk/meat herd 71% 93% crop manure 92% 80% 70% soil fertilizer 53%

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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)

  34. 1999 2005 Cows & Opportunitiescommercial intensive dairy farms, demonstrating possibilities to realise low surpluses

  35. Characteristics of pilot farms

  36. Environmental performance pilot farms

  37. Economics Income N surplus Measures to reduce surplus

  38. Economics Income N surplus Pilot farms measures

  39. Economics Income N surplus 2,500 euro Pilot farms measures

  40. Dutch Mineral Accounting System (1998 – 2006) Farm gate balance Input Output concentrates livestock milk, livestock roughage roughage manure manure artificial fertilizer Farm gate surplus

  41. Dutch Mineral Accounting System (1998 – 2006) Farm gate balance Input Output concentrates livestock milk, livestock roughage roughage manure manure artificial fertilizer About 70 kg N below real surplus (including deposition, clover etc.) Farm gate surplus

  42. Permitted farm gate surpluses (kg N/ha) * On light sandy soils 40 kg less

  43. Real N-surplus of very specialized dairy farms (kg/ha) (-150) Average annual decrease: 38 kg = 11%

  44. Farmgate N-surplus of all dairy farms Save area MINAS

  45. P2O5 -surplus of very specialized dairy farms (kg/ha) (-31) Average annual decrease: 8 kg = 13%

  46. The future •  We love mineral accounting, butEuropean Court of Justice does not 

  47. The future •  We love mineral accounting, butEuropean Court of Justice does not  • We will introduce application standards for fertilizers in 2006 

  48. The future •  We love mineral accounting, butEuropean 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 

  49. The future •  We love mineral accounting, butEuropean 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 

  50. Thanks!

More Related