Innovative Technology and Sustainable Development of Organic - 1.

Veterinary costs expressed per cow are higher for herds with AMS than for herds without AMS
(Oudshoorn et al., 2009). Fixed costs include the fixed costs for barn machinery, building maintenance,
insurance, taxes, and animals. It does not include direct costs for field machinery, labour, energy, feed,
and financing costs such as depreciation. For an AMS herd, capacity costs were on average 50 Euro per
cow lower than for CMS herds. Costs were estimated by using account figures of all organic dairy
farms in 2005, calculated separately for AMS farms and CMS farms (DAAS, 2005).
Costs per cow (capacity and financing) are assumed the same for the different herd sizes in the three
scenarios. A body meat percentage of 48 was used to calculate the price for selling an animal,
regardless of age or gender (Mogensen et al., 2007). Financing costs comprise interest on mortgage,
interest on land, cost for leasing, and other debts. Costs for labour was 27 € h -1 , irrespective of the
workers’ functional level in the enterprise. In 2008, the average potential wage on an organic dairy
farm was 16 € h -1 (Holm, 2008), but since then, an increase in wages has been observed. Costs for
energy used during field work were included in costs for field work (seed and field work). Energy used
on-farm for herd management and heating was estimated on the basis of 2008 energy prices and energy
consumption. Energy use for transporting straw was incorporated in the straw acquisition price.
Economic impact of new technology using AMS and presumed ICT implementation is based on
empiric data of case study farms (DCA, 2008, Oudshoorn et al., 2009).
Environmental evaluation
For each scenario, the environmental evaluation was based on calculation of the impact on greenhouse
gas emissions, the use of fossil fuels and eutrophying compounds (via N-surplus). The emission of
GHGs, the use of fossil energy and the N-surplus, were calculated with the FarmGHG model from
Olesen et al., (2005). This model calculates the nutrient (i.e., carbon (C) and nitrogen (N)) and energy
flows as well as GHG emissions from external inputs and transport to the farm until the product leaves
the farm (see fig. 6). The model was designed and built in the MIDAIR project (EU 5 th Framework
program) to evaluate mitigation options for GHG emission. In this study we used the model to evaluate
and compare the environmental impact of the three vision-based scenarios.
Fig. 6. Flows of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) in and out of the total model farm system and between
compartments within the system represented in the FarmGHG Model (Olesen et al., 2004).
Emission of GHGs in the model includes emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) and is expressed in kg CO2 equivalents per year (i.e., 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4 and
Thesis Frank W. Oudshoorn 93