IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v104y2011i4p315-325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Oudshoorn, Frank W.
  • Sørensen, Claus Aage G.
  • de Boer, Imke I.J.M.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore the sustainability of future organic dairy farming systems in Denmark, by evaluating the economic and environmental consequences of three scenarios at the farm level based on different visions of future sustainability leading to different farm-based goals. The future sustainable organic dairy farming systems were deduced from participative sessions with stakeholders, and used to define specific scenarios and related key parameters. Parameterization of the scenarios was based on model simulations and the invoking of expert knowledge. Each scenario was designed to fulfil different aspects of sustainability. The business as usual scenario (BAU) was driven by economic incentives and implemented new technologies and measures to enhance productivity and efficiency. This scenario was expected to be the mainstream strategy of future organic dairy production in Denmark. In the animal welfare scenario (ANW), economic efficiency was subordinate to animal welfare, and measures to improve animal welfare, such as lower milk yield, extra grazing area and a deep-litter barn, were incorporated. The environmental scenario (ENV) was designed to minimize N losses into the environment, reduce emission of greenhouse gases and the use of fossil energy, and was based on self-sufficiency regarding nutrients and feed. The economic evaluation of the scenarios was based on quantification of farm profitability (i.e. net profit), whereas environmental evaluation was based on the quantification of the N-surplus per ha, emission of greenhouse gases, and use of fossil energy per kg energy-corrected milk (ECM). Compared to prolonging the current main stream strategy (BAU), the evaluation of scenarios revealed that investing in animal welfare comprised trade-offs regarding farm profitability, climate change and the use of fossil energy. In ANW, net profit per farm was almost 39 k[euro] lower than in BAU, whereas emission of greenhouse gases and energy per kg ECM was 8% and 3% higher, respectively. Minimizing environmental impact in ENV reduced local as well as global environmental impact without an economic trade-off. Greenhouse gas emission per kg ECM was 5% lower and fossil energy use was 11% lower than in BAU. The N-surplus of ENV was 80 kg per ha, whereas the N-surplus was approximately 116 in both BAU and ANW. Prolonging the current main stream strategy (BAU) resulted in a high local environmental impact, a moderate global environmental impact and a high economic risk related to changes in milk price or costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Oudshoorn, Frank W. & Sørensen, Claus Aage G. & de Boer, Imke I.J.M., 2011. "Economic and environmental evaluation of three goal-vision based scenarios for organic dairy farming in Denmark," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(4), pages 315-325, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:4:p:315-325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(10)00160-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaas Calker & Paul Berentsen & Gerard Giesen & Ruud Huirne, 2005. "Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(1), pages 53-63, March.
    2. Thomassen, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & Smits, M.C.J. & Iepema, G.L. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 95-107, March.
    3. Refsgaard, Karen & Halberg, Niels & Kristensen, Erik Steen, 1998. "Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 599-630, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Delmotte, Sylvestre & Barbier, Jean-Marc & Mouret, Jean-Claude & Le Page, Christophe & Wery, Jacques & Chauvelon, Phillipe & Sandoz, Alain & Lopez Ridaura, Santiago, 2016. "Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 147-158.
    2. Cipriano Díaz-Gaona & Manuel Sánchez-Rodríguez & Thais Rucabado-Palomar & Vicente Rodríguez-Estévez, 2019. "A Typological Characterization of Organic Livestock Farms in the Natural Park Sierra de Grazalema Based on Technical and Economic Variables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Francesco Galioto & Chiara Paffarini & Massimo Chiorri & Biancamaria Torquati & Lucio Cecchini, 2017. "Economic, Environmental, and Animal Welfare Performance on Livestock Farms: Conceptual Model and Application to Some Case Studies in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Koesling, Matthias & Hansen, Sissel & Bleken, Marina Azzaroli, 2017. "Variations in nitrogen utilisation on conventional and organic dairy farms in Norway," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 11-21.
    5. Fan Fan & Bei Li & Weifeng Zhang & John R. Porter & Fusuo Zhang, 2021. "Evaluation of Sustainability of Irrigated Crops in Arid Regions, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Liang, Long & Lal, Rattan & Ridoutt, Bradley G. & Zhao, Guishen & Du, Zhangliu & Li, Li & Feng, Dangyang & Wang, Liyuan & Peng, Peng & Hang, Sheng & Wu, Wenliang, 2018. "Multi-indicator assessment of a water-saving agricultural engineering project in North Beijing, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 34-46.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kraatz, Simone, 2012. "Energy intensity in livestock operations – Modeling of dairy farming systems in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 90-106.
    2. Luhmann, Henrike & Schaper, Christian & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "Acceptance of a Sustainability Standard: Evidence from an Empirical Study of Future-Oriented Dairy Farmers," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244538, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Philip Shine & John Upton & Paria Sefeedpari & Michael D. Murphy, 2020. "Energy Consumption on Dairy Farms: A Review of Monitoring, Prediction Modelling, and Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    4. Pagani, Marco & Vittuari, Matteo & Johnson, Thomas G. & De Menna, Fabio, 2016. "An assessment of the energy footprint of dairy farms in Missouri and Emilia-Romagna," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 116-126.
    5. Anna Kuczuk & Janusz Pospolita, 2020. "Sustainable Agriculture – Energy and Emergy Aspects of Agricultural Production," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 1000-1018.
    6. Pashaei Kamali, Farahnaz & Borges, João A.R. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2017. "Sustainability assessment of agricultural systems: The validity of expert opinion and robustness of a multi-criteria analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 118-128.
    7. Lucio Cecchini & Biancamaria Torquati & Chiara Paffarini & Marco Barbanera & Daniele Foschini & Massimo Chiorri, 2016. "The Milk Supply Chain in Italy’s Umbria Region: Environmental and Economic Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Luhmann, Henrike & Schape, Christian & Theuvsen, Ludwig & Weiland, Ingke, 2016. "Was Bedingt Die Bereitschaft Deutscher Milcherzeuger Zur Teilnahme An Einem Nachhaltigkeitsstandard? Ergebnisse Einer Empirischen Untersuchung," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244758, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Shingo Yoshida & Hironori Yagi, 2021. "Long-Term Development of Urban Agriculture: Resilience and Sustainability of Farmers Facing the Covid-19 Pandemic in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, April.
    10. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    11. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Jan Willem Erisman & Allison Leach & Albert Bleeker & Brooke Atwell & Lia Cattaneo & James Galloway, 2018. "An Integrated Approach to a Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) Indicator for the Food Production–Consumption Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Bonamigo, Andrei & Ferenhof, Helio Aisenberg & Forcellini, Fernando Antonio, 2017. "Dairy Ecosystem Barriers Exposed - A Case Study In A Family Production Unit At Western Santa Catarina, Brazil," Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais/Rural and Agro-Industrial Organizations, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Administracao e Economia, vol. 19(1), January.
    14. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Pervanchon, F. & Bockstaller, C. & Girardin, P., 2002. "Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 149-172, May.
    16. Harvey James, 2006. "Sustainable agriculture and free market economics: Finding common ground in Adam Smith," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(4), pages 427-438, December.
    17. Tuomisto, H.L. & Hodge, I.D. & Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W., 2012. "Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 42-49.
    18. Barut, Zeliha Bereket & Ertekin, Can & Karaagac, Hasan Ali, 2011. "Tillage effects on energy use for corn silage in Mediterranean Coastal of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 5466-5475.
    19. Ledgard, Stewart F. & Wei, Sha & Wang, Xiaoqin & Falconer, Shelley & Zhang, Nannan & Zhang, Xiying & Ma, Lin, 2019. "Nitrogen and carbon footprints of dairy farm systems in China and New Zealand, as influenced by productivity, feed sources and mitigations," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 155-163.
    20. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:4:p:315-325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.