A small revolution is underway in agriculture, and therefore also in dairy farming. The value of food is increasingly determined by the footprint, the calculated climate impact of products. This can be at the expense of other matters, such as appreciation for physical product quality, animal welfare or matters such as grazing. The calculated CO2 footprint of milk, meat or vegetable products, and behind it, the climate impact of feed, energy and other means of production (inputs) become both the new payment factors and the keys to higher earnings.
This change in the appreciation of food, especially in the Western world, seems unstoppable. Major food giants want to achieve their climate goals and are therefore increasingly increasing the requirements for the CO2 emissions of their purchased goods.
| Dairy industry has more CO2 emissions than animal feed industry: What is wrong? |
|
The dairy farming industry has been working with the Kringloopwijzer (KLW) for a number of years. Livestock farmers are obliged to complete these through the dairy delivery conditions, because it provides insight into company emissions. Air emissions and the CO2 footprint are becoming increasingly important. Also for the government that is watching, but primarily for the processors. The cycle must be completed. For livestock feed, for example, this means that the CO2 footprint of all dairy feed upon delivery to farms must be (roughly) the same as what the dairy companies can calculate via the KLW. Because what goes in should come out. However, the Nevedi dairy cattle sector council of March 12 noted that this sum is incorrect. This is evident from a mailing in the hands of Boerenbusiness. The dairy industry has more CO2 emissions from animal feed through milk than the animal feed industry has reported. The animal feed industry is now trying to find out where the missing animal feed CO2 comes from. It does not seem like an easy task, because interviewing farmers is not the intention. But it is a question: do farmers, for example, quietly purchase extra animal feed from across the border, or is something else not being recorded? It is also known that certain business formations, especially the more extensive ones, are less easy to calculate. An error in the calculation method could also be possible, but this is considered less likely. |
Not just bureaucratic
This may be partly a bureaucratic exercise, presenting facts in the most favorable light possible, but nevertheless the Nestlés and Unilevers of this world are increasingly paying attention to the footprint of input sources (both on-farm and off-farm, Tier-3 emissions, as it is called in jargon). Large dairy companies, such as Arla, FrieslandCampina, but also medium-sized ones such as Vreugdenhil Dairy Foods and A-ware, now have experience with it.
It takes some getting used to for farmers, but also for governments. Perhaps most of all for the latter, because even though they are partly in the lead in new climate policy, the question is whether the practical implementation of the policy is still in line with the current direction. For example, what consequences does the change have for matters such as grazing, animal range, land-relatedness and other well-known policy anchors?
cycle pointer
Dairy farmers are confronted with the change through the Kringloopwijzer (KLW) and the production for specific milk flows. At the KLW it may not yet be clear to everyone what entering all the numbers in this program will lead to. The KLW provides the farmer with management information, but also provides him and third parties with insight into the mineral supply and removal and the calculated emissions per kilo of measured milk produced. Including through the consumption of feed, fertilizer, fuel and further energy consumption. The emission figure will become increasingly important in the coming years. See, among other things, the current campaign by Nevedi (animal feed manufacturers) and the KLW to obtain missing supply data for 2023 from dairy farmers (read more in the box).
Rumen fermentation is the largest source of emissions
Most CO2 emissions (actually methane) are due to rumen fermentation in cows. At the De Marke pilot company, this was about 2022% in 48. The greatest emission reductions can of course be achieved there, for example with methane inhibitors such as Bovaer, Silvaer or products from seaweed, but these are not used in the Netherlands. This is followed by emissions from supply sources and then those from the manure cellar and storage.
LCAs for feed and energy
Emission factors are now also attached to animal feed, fertilizer use, mechanization and energy consumption. This is done using life cycle analysis (LCA). Numerous consultancy firms and data service providers have entered this market and calculate the emission factor for each product. In livestock farming, the compound feed industry was the first to enter the LCA market. Nevedi engaged Bureau Blonk for this purpose a number of years ago. This agency has now been taken over by the French data giant Merieux, but this company does not make all the calculations and formulas itself. Merieux again purchases data from the Swiss Ecoinvent.
Limited data sharing
These types of agencies have made emission calculations for all possible types of feed materials using an LCA, based on averages during cultivation and production, processing and transport to Europe or to a specific factory. The results are often not allowed to be shared (widely), because they are the revenue model of the data agency. Most customers are satisfied with this, because it is often not worthwhile to make a validated calculation themselves.
Freedom great flows
Own calculations are sometimes only made for the most commonly used raw materials. That is also what most Dutch compound feed companies do. They purchase LCA data for raw materials that are smaller in volume, and their own data is used for commonly used raw materials, such as soy, (grain) corn products and a few other raw materials. For products from our own (primary) company, such as grass and corn, standard results are used.
For Dutch dairy farming (or another sector), the use of standard data can be particularly disadvantageous, because they may not take into account additional efficiency of the Dutch sector compared to, for example, the European average.
Emission flavors
Individually, most product-specific LCAs will have relatively little influence on the CO2 footprint of, for example, a kilo of milk or a ton of milk powder. Taken together it becomes a different story.
The total CO2 footprint of a product is not just a simple sum of all factors that have some influence. A distinction is also made as to whether the emissions are linked to a specific activity. They can be biogenic, linked to fossil emissions or to (change in) land use. The second and third categories are particularly unpopular with buyers.
GWP
Limiting CO2 emissions is considered important due to concerns about global warming. Methane is estimated to be a lot worse than carbon dioxide. Therefore, the warming effect, it global warming potential (GWP), very important. For this purpose, a review by the IPPC of methane in 2022 was very important. This then reduced the GWP of methane from 34 to 27. That - on paper - of course provides more climate benefits than a more favorable footprint for chicory pulp, for example. However, in the coming years, dairy farming will increasingly be confronted with the desired reduction in the CO2 footprint of milk, and therefore with the use of as many products and inputs as possible with the most favorable possible LCA.