LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 1B: TOWARDS LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
lated with economic and environmental performance. Moreover, only nine INC farms were assessed. A
higher number of farms is needed to improve robustness of comparing the INC farming system, with conventional
practices, especially considering the fact that variability within the groups was substantial.
For economic performance, no significant differences were seen. However, NFI was 44% higher for INC
farms. High standard deviations indicated that differences within groups were higher than between groups. It
is common that economic performance differs highly among farms. There are also large fluctuations between
the years, which also affects the outcomes of our analyses. The year 2008 was a relatively prosperous year,
whereas 2009 showed the lowest income over the last decade (De Bont et al., 2009). INC farms received a
higher income due to higher payments from bird protection programmes and used a higher amount of own
labour, which was not included in NFI.
For environmental performance, INC farms outperformed conventional farms on energy use and SOC.
Using above-ground spreading for slurry explains a lower on-farm energy use, because of lower diesel consumption
application technique. On-farm acidification potential was expected to be higher due to a higher
emission factor for aboveground spreading. INC farms, however, applied less artificial fertiliser and had a
housing system with a lower emission factor, compensating the higher emission of applying animal manure.
SOC was significantly higher for INC farms, partly because these farms were reluctant in applying regular
grassland renovation. Results from other studies however also show that SOC contents are strongly controlled
by soil type, drainage level and land use history, factors which are site-specific. Thus, the differences
between both groups with respect to SOC content cannot purely be related to differences in current farm
management.
For societal performance, current FADN does not have the potential to assess animal welfare using preferred
animal-based indicators. Pasture hours, therefore, were used as an indirect indicator for animal welfare.
This indicator showed no differences between both farm types. INC farms significantly differed from
conventional farms for received payments on ecosystem services. These payments, however, did not reflect
the actual gain in improved societal performance. A better indicator should be area based, or expressing biodiversity,
e.g. number of plant species, or number of birds. The INC farms aims for improved nutrient cycling,
by making use of all available resources on-farm. This approach goes along with social involvement
and entrepreneurial complacency. These values, however, were not included in this assessment.
5. Conclusion
INC farms positively differ from conventional farms in a lower non-renewable energy use, higher soil organic
carbon and receiving higher payments for ecosystem services, without compromising on their economic
performance. However, significant differences between INC farms were limited, despite INC farm
follow a farming practice aiming at optimizing use of on-farm available resources. Overall, most performance
indicators did not show significant differences. High standard deviations indicate that differences within
groups are mostly higher than between groups.
6. References
Anonymous, 2010a. Handreiking bedrijfsspecifieke excretie melkvee, versie per 1 januari 2010 van kracht. Ministry of Economic
Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Hague.
Anonymous, 2010b. Regeling Ammoniak en Veehouderij (RAV), article 2. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, The
Hague.
Blank, S. C., Erickson, K.W., Nehring, R., Hallahan, C., 2009. Agricultural profits and farm household wealth: a farm-level analysis
using repeated cross sections. Journal of agricultural and applied economics 1: 207-225.
Bennet, L.T., Mele, P.M., Annett, S., Kasel, S., 2010. Examining links between soil management, soil health, and public benefits in
agricultural landscapes: An Australian perspective. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 139: 1-12.
De Bont, C.J.A.M, Van Everdingen, W.H., Van der Knijff, A., Van der Meulen, H.A.B., 2009. Actuele ontwikkeling van resultaten
en inkomens in de land- en tuinbouw in 2009. LEI, part of Wageningen UR. The Hague.
Dekker, S.E.M., De Boer, I.J.M., Vermeij, I., Aarnink, A.J.A., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., 2011. Ecological and economic evaluation
of Dutch egg production systems. Livestock Science 139: 109-121.
De Vries, M., Bokkers, E.A.M., Dijkstra T., Van Schaik, G., De Boer, I.J.M., 2011. Invited review: Associations between variables
of routine herd data and dairy cattle welfare indicators. J. Dairy Science: 94:3213–3228.
EU, 2006. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Commission of the European communities, Brussels.
Heijungs, R., Guinee, J.,Huppes, G., Lankreijer, R.M., Udo de Haes, H.A., Wagener Sleeswijk, A., Ansems, A.M.M., Eggels, P.G.,
VanDuin, R., De Goede, H.P., 1992. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and backgrounds. CML, Institute
for Environmental Sciences, Leiden.
IPCC, 2007. In: Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A.(Eds.), Core Writing Team, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva.
Nevedi, 2008-2009. Lineaire programmeringen rundvee-, varkens- en pluimveevoeders. Monthly reports on feed composition computed
by Schothorst Feed Research BV. Lelystad.
84