'Louis Bolk report is a mess'

Last week Milieudefensie the report 'Exploring a land-based dairy farming' presented. It points out that the Dutch dairy farming sector must shrink considerably. The report was written by the Louis Bolk Institute and is a useful exercise, but it is based on a number of incorrect assumptions.

My name can also be found among the members of the advisory committee. That committee had 2 meetings, of which I was only present at the last one. During that meeting, strong criticism was also expressed on the concept at the time. Based on this, a number of uncertainties have been omitted from the report.

No enemy of livestock farming
We must first state that it is a good thing that organizations such as Milieudefensie are involved in the agricultural sector and (in particular) livestock farming. In recent years I have experienced that Milieudefensie's attitude, behavior and actions have changed considerably. It used to be an organization that only used superlatives, with the aim of putting livestock farming in a negative light. It is now an organization that proclaims that farmers are not a problem, but can make a significant contribution to solving social issues related to climate and the environment. 

Milieudefensie is therefore not an enemy of livestock farming. In addition to environmentally and animal-friendly livestock farming, the organization also tries to develop income-friendly livestock farming. 

Study of land-based dairy farming
Milieudefensie has asked the Louis Bolk Institute to: a study towards land-based dairy farming.​ Page 7 of the report contains a description of how the research question came about. 

The core of the research question is as follows:
In consultation with Milieudefensie, it was decided to focus this report on the possible size of the dairy farming sector under different limits for environmental factors. Land-relatedness is taken as the starting point, because this is not only a means of meeting the various environmental objectives, but also of not losing the image and support for dairy farming as a land-based sector. In addition, the effects are indicated on other themes, such as the economy, external costs and on the amount of land outside Europe where animal feed for Dutch cows is grown (page 7 LBI report).

wet finger work
The core of the research question is therefore about land-relatedness within the various environmental factors. And in fact, that is also where the shoe pinches for the compilers of the report. The limitation of the various environmental factors is not a hard science, but mainly based on assumptions and so-called scientific estimates.

In addition, various studies by the Mesdag Fund show that it is also often based on "wet finger work". These data are then turned into truth, because this fits in well with the line of thought or the wish of the researchers and their clients.

There are 2 striking elements 
When we analyze the LBI report, we come across 2 striking elements.

1. The selective use of the research data and the limited distribution thereof.
2. A certain amount of incorrect data is used consciously or unconsciously. These strongly influence the conclusions of the report. A few examples of this can be found on page 6. 'The dairy herd has to go back with about 60.000 cows (among other measures) to get back below the phosphate ceiling.'

It may of course be that the 1 for the 60.000 has been omitted, but I can still hope that such a report has been read a number of times. It is hard to imagine that 2 experienced researchers make a mistake of 60.000 instead of the correct 160.000.

misses
Such mistakes are exemplary for the report.​ We will continue on page 6 of the report. The following can be read there:
What is striking in this repair operation is that the focus is mainly on reducing phosphate production. Although that is the short-term goal, stricter legislation on the production of ammonia and greenhouse gases is also on the agenda in the coming years. In addition, further elaboration of legislation for water quality will certainly have an effect in the coming years.

• The nitrate load of the groundwater has been greatly reduced, but the target is still exceeded on southern sandy soils.
• Phosphate accumulation under agricultural land has stopped, but the standards for nitrogen and phosphate are exceeded in about half of the surface waters fed by agricultural land. The current measures are far from sufficient for a proportional contribution from agriculture to improving surface water quality (van Grinsven & Bleeker, 2017).

In short: feigned hell and damnation which should be feared by dairy farming from future legislation or tightening up current legislation. 

Greenhouse gases in a row
Greenhouse gases from dairy farming are described as a future frontier. I deal with ammonia, methane and CO2. 

1. Ammonia (NH3)
Let's start with ammonia and its actual situation. Ammonia is surrounded by many uncertainties. The emissions from dairy farming are calculated and these calculations contain historical measurements. In addition, these calculations are made with outdated models. 

In 2016, various tests were carried out in Dronten into the differences between the various measuring methods. The WUR method was also applied there. The research showed that 20 percent more emissions were found with the WUR method. I believe that WUR will now say that the fault will lie with the other European institutes and that WUR is infallible. However, 20 percent is a lot. Even at 10 percent I am already amazed. 

The Dutch ammonia emissions are not determined on the basis of measurements, but on the basis of a limited number of measurements and on the basis of calculations. The calculation models used date from the 80s. There is much to criticize about the accuracy of these models.

In January Hanekamp, ​​Briggs and de Crock made it clear that the current calculation model also has a deviation of between 30 and 300 percent. More information about that will be coming very soon.

If we keep it at an overestimation of 30 percent, that is still very substantial. The researchers at the institute do not discuss the 2 major differences in ammonia. However, the researchers stick to the fossil knowledge and ideas of the 80s from the previous century. That is not a scientific approach, but a subjective choice with a "desired outcome".

My conclusion is that ammonia will disappear from the picture in the next 10 years. Like acid rain, ammonia is also less of a problem than it has been for years. Ammonia only became a problem when there was a budget to research the theme and the researchers managed to make it clear that more research was needed. Milieudefensie therefore loses ammonia as an argument for shrinking livestock.

2. Methane (CH4)
Methane is seen by many as the largest gas from dairy farming. The methane emissions from dairy farming do not only come from manure, but also from the digestive system of the cow. When regurgitating the contents of the stomach, large amounts of gas are brought with it. These gases are formed by the oxygen-poor bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and in the cow's rumen. 

The claim is that methane is 23 times stronger than CO2. In the current Dutch models, methane emissions from cows count as a burden that livestock farms contribute to the climate issue. That's the right approach.

All reports mention very large uncertainties and it becomes clear that the discussion about methane is anything but solidly substantiated. However, just as with ammonia, methane is surrounded by estimates and models with a confidence range of between 10 and 30 percent.

Methane and the currently available data do not provide a basis for drastic measures. What can be deduced from the data is that heavy rewetting of areas results in increasing methane emissions. The LBI also has no basis in methane to argue for a contraction of dairy farming.

3. CO2
Dairy farming would also contribute to CO2 emissions. This is released during various processes of dairy farming. This includes energy consumption for milking the cows, cooling milk, lighting in stables, transport, processing soils and crops and applying fertilizers. There are people who have the illusion that you can become CO2 neutral by fermenting manure. That is not the case.

With CO2, the phenomenon also occurs that there are different numbers about CO2 emissions from dairy farming. This also has to do with the large differences in the models used and what is or is not included in the calculations. A very dubious calculation method, because it is not only the dairy farming sector that decides on water level management in areas. 

What is not taken into account in all calculations is the fixation of CO2 in the soil. Most Dutch research on this point are not really hopeful. This is mainly due to the research methods (eg shallow soil samples in grassland).

The grasses and grassland management systems used in the Netherlands are not optimized for CO2 sequestration. This while the potential is great here. Much research has been done in this area in Switzerland, Austria, France, Ireland, Portugal and the US. I take 2 studies as an example that indicate the potential.

1. The research of Rogier Schulte and Rachel E. Creamer. This indicates that if you adjust grassland management and measure more deeply, you can measure more C (organic matter) and thus capture more CO2.
2. Teixeira's research. This study refers to 4 to 5 tons of CO2 that must be recorded annually. That is more than 3,4 million tons of annual commitment. 

If we then convert maize into grass (for example, 180.000 hectares of the 206.000 hectares are for dairy farming), then another 720.000 tons of CO2 is added. Then we arrive at 4,1 million tons of CO2 sequestration. Without fertilizer and with clover/regional concentrates instead of soy, you will still pull 1 million tons of CO2 out of the table.

Suppose Teixeira is right and with 1 percent organic matter in the top 15 centimeters, you do indeed get 25 tons of annual commitment. Dairy farming is then a huge Carbon Sink. But can Teixeira really be right? Yes, that's possible.

Multi-year trials have been done on my own farm without perennial ryegrass, but with Reed Swing, Westerwolds and Red Clover. In addition, 50 cubic meters of slurry spread over 3 applications (25, 15 and 10) and no fertilizer. The organic matter content increased by more than 1 percent in one year. The dry matter yield per hectare was over 18 tons. 

The comparison with the same grass mixture with 10 cubic meters less manure, supplemented to the same nitrogen level, not only resulted in a lower dry matter yield per hectare (about 2 tons less), but also 0,25 percent more organic matter. So what Teixeira discovered in Portugal also worked in Flevoland. 

The argument of climate gases is also fairly nuanced. 

Water quality due to contraction of livestock farming
Water quality is also cited as an argument for shrinking dairy farming. When it comes to groundwater, the researchers say that the groundwater is still far above the nitrate standard, especially in the southern part of the country. Is that correct? This statement is correct when it comes to arable land.

But it is precisely the groundwater under grassland on southern sand that meets the standard for more than 90 percent. Also Research shows that up to 400 kilos of N per hectare can be applied from animal manure on grassland, without an increased risk of leaching of the N.

Groundwater quality therefore also does not hold, despite the firm claims of the LBI.

What about the quality of surface water?
Well, that's exactly what the Mesdag Fund has had a lot of research into. If we in the Netherlands are wise enough to impose the broadest standards for surface water in nature and water intake areas and the strictest standards in agricultural areas, then it goes without saying that the nature reserves always meet and usually exceed the agricultural areas. If we turn this around, the nature reserves will have a problem. 

In a report to Brussels, RIVM shows that agriculture is responsible for more than 60 percent of the problem solving of P and N in surface water.

Agriculture is an easy target
Stricter standards apply to agriculture, because it is easier for politicians to limit fertilization and the size of the livestock. Agriculture is used as a free water carrier, alias abused. The 30 percent contribution to emissions to surface water is based on relatively old figures. Using more recent figures, it is 13 percent for N and over 20 percent for P. 

So the argument of the quality of surface water as a necessity to reduce livestock numbers does not hold up either.

Shame about the outdated numbers
All in all, you can say that it is good that Milieudefensie wants to be informed about dairy farming and ecological limits. It is just a pity that the researchers of the Louis Bolk Institute have based themselves on limited and often outdated Dutch studies in almost all files. 

Weird claim
There is only 1 international reference in the bibliography and 2 more times by Grinsven of the PBL. This Mr. van Grinsven says he is a senior researcher at the PBL (Plan Bureau for the Living Environment). However, the PBL claims to be independent. It is a bit of a strange claim if Mr. van Grinsven writes a book in his spare time about the damage caused by livestock farming.

Broilerwork
The LBI's report is therefore a mess. The conclusion that a contraction of dairy farming is necessary is completely out of touch with reality. A land-based dairy farm is a sustainable dairy farm. It is sufficient to substantiate that the limit will then be 2,3 to 2,5 GV per hectare with between 16.750 and 18.000 kilos of milk per hectare (without maize in the ration, no fertilizer and no manure removal).

The LBI researchers and others will say, "Nice story about that birdwatcher, but he's no scientist." In that they are right. I have no university degrees. Although I have learned over the past 30 years that a university degree does not guarantee common sense or any degree of scientific awareness. However, even without university degrees, the researchers still like to use my name to legitimize the content of their work. 

So what is so positive about Milieudefensie's efforts? 
Milieudefensie stimulates people to think. So I started writing this piece. Milieudefensie also focuses on retail. One has to start thinking about sustainability and how they are going to implement this. And Milieudefensie says that quality and product integration cannot be in vain, but that farmers should be able to receive a decent reward for it.

The only real bummer about the report is the complete disqualification of the LBI investigators. The report is very poorly substantiated. For example, the researchers did not look at what the ecological limits might be. But they've been looking for arguments to use to explain the shrinkage. The conclusion was predetermined and the researchers sought arguments for it. Milieudefensie embarked on a meaningful exercise, but Louis Bolk left it pointless in a downright lousy report. 

Jan Cees Vogelaar

Jan Cees Vogelaar is chairman of the Mesdag Fund Foundation and the Horse Sector Council. He comes from Lelystad and has been a dairy farmer for many years. He is committed to a higher quality of milk through the Mesdag Dairy Fund.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.