Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:09:39.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm-gate nutrient balance assessment of organic dairy farms at different intensity levels in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2007

G. Haas ,
C. Deittert  and
U. Köpke
G. Haas*
Affiliation:
Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Katzenburgweg 3, D-53115Bonn, Germany.
C. Deittert
Affiliation:
Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Katzenburgweg 3, D-53115Bonn, Germany.
U. Köpke
Affiliation:
Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Katzenburgweg 3, D-53115Bonn, Germany.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic farms are characterized as low external input agro-ecosystems. Currently, some organic dairy farmers feed higher amounts of concentrates and succulent feed, some of which is purchased, to increase the dairy performance of their cows. To assess the environmental impact of this practice, nutrient balances at the farm-gate level of 26 organic dairy farms located in two different regions in Germany were compiled and analysed. The farms are characterized by different production features and feeding intensity levels [0–2.72 t dry matter (DM) of concentrates per cow and year, which was 0–378 g kg−1 milk] yielding 5150–8790 kg milk on average per cow and year. The area- and product (milk)-related farm-gate nutrient budgets for P and K are almost balanced [mean −3 kg P ha−1, range (R): −14 to 4 kg P ha−1; −0.5 g P kg−1 milk, R: −2.8 to 0.9 g P kg−1 milk and 1 kg K ha−1, R: −13 to 15 kg K ha−1; 0.1 g K kg−1 milk, R: −2.4 to 3.9 g K kg−1 milk]. The N surplus averages only 43 kg ha−1 (R: 8–85 kg N ha−1) and 8.2 g kg−1 milk (R: 2.1–17.1 g kg−1 milk), but the correlation between the amount of feed purchased on a net basis and N surplus is significant (r=0.56, P=0.003). Average area-related nutrient use efficiency for all farms calculated as the proportion of input to output is high for N (45%), P (164%) and K (91%). The share of nutrient input and output components and correlations between parameters are presented. To classify the results, investigations comparing organic and conventional dairy farming in Europe are listed, indicating an N surplus for organic farms, which is often only half or a third of the surplus of conventional farms. However, intensification in organic dairy farming has, in some cases, significant impacts that need to be assessed to determine its environmental performance and profile.

Keywords

nutrient balancenutrient budgetdairy farmfarm gatenitrogenorganic farmingphosphoruspotassium
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 223 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rahmann, G., Nieberg, H., Drengemann, S., Fenneker, A., March, S., and Zurek, C. 2004. Bundesweite Erhebung und Analyse ökologisch wirtschaftender Betriebe. FAL Agricultural Research, Landbauforschung Völkenrode SH 276, Braunschweig, Germany. p. 26.Google Scholar
2 IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements). 2002. Norms for Organic Production and Processing—IFOAM Basic Standards. IFOAM, Head Office, Bonn, Germany. p. 27.Google Scholar
3 van Beek, C.L., Brouwer, L., and Oenema, O. 2003. The use of farmgate balances and soil surface balances as estimator for nitrogen leaching to surface water. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 67:233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Dalgaard, T., Halberg, N., and Kristensen, I.S. 1998. Can organic farming help to reduce N-losses?—experiences from Denmark. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 52:277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Haas, G., Wetterich, F., and Geier, G. 2000. Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the farm level. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5:345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Halberg, N., Verschuur, G., and Goodlass, G. 2005. Farm level environmental indicators: are they useful? An overview of green accounting systems for European farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105:195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Haas, G. 1995. Betriebsbedingte Nährstoffbilanzen am Beispiel des Organischen Landbaus. In der Landwirtschaftskammern, Verband und Düngung, Bundesarbeitskreis (eds). Nährstoffbilanz im Blickfeld von Landwirtschaft und Umwelt. Frankfurt, Germany. p. 93–110.Google Scholar
8 Haas, G. and Deittert, C. 2004. Environmental impact assessment, nutrient matter flow analyses, and production efficiency of organic dairy farms at different intensity levels (Abstract in English). Research Report 514-43.10/02OE462, Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
9 Haas, G., Deittert, C., and Köpke, U. 2007. Impact of feeding pattern and feed purchase on area- and cow-related dairy performance of organic farms. Livestock Science 106:132–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Boller, B.C. and Noesberger, J. 1987. Symbiotically fixed nitrogen from field-grown white and red clover mixed with ryegrasses at low levels of 15N-fertilization. Plant and Soil 104:219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Boller, B.C., Luescher, A., and Zanetti, S. 2003. Schätzung der biologischen Stickstoff-Fixierung in Klee-Gras-Beständen. Schriftenreihe Nr. 45 der Eidgenössischen Forschungsanstalt für Agrarökologie und Landbau, Zürich-Reckenholz, Switzerland. p. 47–54.Google Scholar
12 Weissbach, F. 1995. Über die Schätzung des Beitrags der symbiotischen N2-Fixierung durch Weissklee zur Stickstoffbilanz von Grünlandflächen. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 45:67–74.Google Scholar
13 Haas, G. 2004. Nitrogen supply of vegetable and maize crops following winter green manure legumes (Abstract in English). Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
14 Köpke, U. 1987. Symbiotische Stickstoff-Fixierung und Vorfruchtwirkung von Ackerbohnen (Vicia faba L.). Habilitationsschrift, University of Goettingen, Neuauflage 1996. Verlag Dr. Köster, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
15 Köpke, U. 1995. Nutrient management in organic farming systems: the case of nitrogen. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 11:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Federal Ministry of Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry. 1996. Anhang zur Musterverwaltungsvorschrift zur Düngeverordnung. Federal Ministry of Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
17 Bengtsson, H. 2005. Nutrient and trace element flows and balances at the Öjebyn dairy farm. PhD thesis no. 2005:2, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.Google Scholar
18 Haas, G., Wetterich, F., and Köpke, U. 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83:43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Watson, C.A., Bengtsson, H., Ebbesvik, M., Loes, A.K., Myrbeck, A., Salomon, E., Schroder, J., and Stockdale, E.A. 2002. A review of farm-scale nutrient budgets for organic farms as a tool for management of soil fertility. Soil Use and Management 18:264–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Wieser, I., Hess, J., and Lindenthal, T. 1996. Nutrient balances on organically managed grassland farms in Upper Austria (Abstract in English). Bodenkultur 47:81–88.Google Scholar
21 Steinshamn, H., Thuen, E., Azzaroli, Bleken M., Tutein, Brenoe U., Ekerholt, G. and Yri, C. 2004. Utilization of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in an organic dairy farming system in Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104:509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Scheringer, J. 2002. Nitrogen on dairy farms: balances and efficiency. PhD thesis, University of Goettingen. Excelsior Publisher, Hohengandern, Germany.Google Scholar
23 van der Werff, P.A., Baars, A., and Oomen, G.J.M. 1995. Nutrient balances and measurement of nitrogen losses on mixed ecological farms on sand soils in the Netherlands. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 11:41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Halberg, N., Steen, Kristensen E., and Sillebak, Kristensen I. 1995. Nitrogen turnover on organic and conventional mixed farms. Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Ethics 8:30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Aarts, H.F.M., Habekotté, B., and van Keulen, H. 2000. Phosphorus (P) management in the ‘De Marke’ dairy farming system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 56:219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Withers, P.J.A., Peel, S., Mansbridge, R.M., Chalmers, A.C., and Lane, S.J. 1999. Transfer of phosphorus within three dairy farming systems receiving varying inputs in feed and fertilizers. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 55:63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Gosling, P. and Shepherd, M. 2005. Long-term changes in soil fertility in organic arable farming systems in England, with particular reference to phosphorus and potassium. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105:425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Loes, A.-K. and Ogaard, A.F. 2001. Long-term changes in extractable soil phosphorus (P) in organic dairy farming systems. Plant and Soil 237:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Nolte, C. and Werner, W. 1994. Investigation on the nutrient cycle and its components of a biodynamically-managed farm. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 10:235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Tunney, H., Csatho, P., and Ehlert, P. 2003. Approaches to calculating P balance at the field-scale in Europe. Journal of Plant Nutrients and Soil Science 166:438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Neyroud, J.-A. and Lischer, P. 2003. Do different methods used to estimate soil phosphorus availability across Europe give comparable results? Journal of Plant Nutrients and Soil Science 166:422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Taube, F. and Poetsch, E.M. 2001. On-farm nutrient balance assessment to improve nutrient management on organic dairy farms. In Isselstein, J. and Spatz, G.H. (eds) Organic Grassland Farming. Symposium European Grassland Federation (EGF), 10–12 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Proceedings, Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 6. British Grassland Society, Glos., UK. p. 225–234.Google Scholar
33 Kristensen, S. 2004. Nitrogen balance from dairy farms (2002). Danish Institute of Agricultural Science. Available at Web site: www.lcafood.org/processes/agriculture/N_balance_dairyfarms.htm (verified 12 April 2005).Google Scholar
34 Schumacher, U. 1996. Vergleichende nutztierökologische Untersuchungen auf ökologischen und konventionellen Milchviehbetrieben in Mittelhessen. PhD thesis, University of Giessen, Germany.Google Scholar
35 Taube, F., Wachendorf, M., Greef, M., and Wulfes, R. 1997. Perspectives of semi-intensive production systems for dairy farms in northern Germany (Abstract in English). Berichte über Landwirtschaft 75:586–603.Google Scholar
36 Gruber, L., Steinwender, R., Guggenberger, T., and Plakolm, G. 2001. Comparison of organic and conventional farming on a grassland farm—3rd communication: nutrient balances on supply/withdrawal basis and import/export basis (Abstract in English). Bodenkultur 52:183–195.Google Scholar
37 Rosati, A. and Aumaitre, A. 2004. Organic dairy farming in Europe. Livestock Production Science 90:41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Jonsson, S. 2004. Öjebynprojektet-ekologisk production av livsmedel. Slutrapport. Röbäcksdalen Meddelar 5:2004. Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Öjebyn.Google Scholar
39 Cederberg, C. and Flysjoe, A. 2004. Life cycle inventory of 23 dairy farms in south-western Sweden. Research Report, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. Available at Web site: www.sik.se/archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR728(1).pdf (verified 24 March 2005).Google Scholar
40 Leach, K.A. and Roberts, J. 2002. Assessment and improvement of the efficiency of nitrogen use in clover based and fertilizer based dairy systems. 1. Benchmarking using farm gate balances. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 20:143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 ter Veer, D. 2003. Mineralenoverschot Aver Heino drastisch gedaald na omschakeling. PraktijkKompas Rundvee 5:11.Google Scholar
42 Pinxterhuis, I., Hutschemaekers, B., and de Haan, M. 2003. Kosten en saldo Aver Heino hoger na omschakeling. PraktijkKompas Rundvee 5:10–11.Google Scholar
43 Smolders, G. and Wagenaar, J.P. (eds) 2004. Bioveem in beeld. Prakijk en onderzoek op 10 biologische melkveebedrijven, 1997–2001. Praktijkonderzoek Animal Sciences Group van Wageningen UR, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
44 Beldman, A.C.G., Doornewaard, G.J., Tomson, N.C., and Daatselaar, C.H.G. 2003. Strategie en cijfers: strategische plannen getoetst aan de werkelijkheid—trends en cijfers 1997–2002. Landbouw Econmisch Instituut. Available at Web site: www.praktijkcijfers.nl.Google Scholar
45 Weller, R.F. and Bowling, P.J. 2004. The performance and nutrient use efficiency of two contrasting systems of organic milk production. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 22:261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46 Fagerberg, B., Salomon, E., and Jonsson, S. 1996. Comparison between conventional and ecological farming systems at Öjebyn. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 26:169–180.Google Scholar