As part of the 18th IFOAM Organic World Congress in Istanbul 2014, SOLID and FiBL co-organized a workshop on participatory research in practice.

Read more about the workshop and find relevant information material.

In the end of September, a workshop on the topic of practical sustainability assessment for dairy producers was held in the UK. It provided an opportunity to gather feedback from farmers, consultants and stakeholders on the current SOLID results on this topic.

By Laurence Smith, Sustainability Researcher, The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm (ORC)

On the 24^th September 2014 a workshop was held at The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm on the topic of practical sustainability assessment for dairy producers.  The workshop provided an opportunity to gather feedback from farmers, consultants and other industry stakeholders on the results from the sustainability assessments and methodology development carried out within workpackage 4 to date. The day also presented the opportunity to try out some of the most popular carbon footprinting tools currently available.

John Hermansen of Aarhus University began by providing an overview of the SOLID project and workpackage 4, highlighting the outputs for industry (e.g. a toolbox for sustainability assessments) and policy makers (e.g. dairy system comparisons). Laurence Smith of ORC then provided an overview of the different methods used to calculate carbon footprints of farming systems and the online carbon footprinting tools currently available.  The results from the assessment of 34 organic dairy farms were then presented by Sanna Hietala of MTT.  The assessment showed that higher milk yields resulted in lower carbon footprints per litre of milk across the countries assessed.

The participants were then asked to complete a practical exercise with two carbon footprinting tools, using example farm data provided by ORC.  The tools used were CALM (Carbon Accounting for Land Managers), a whole-farm assessment tool that accounts mainly for emissions within the farm gate, and the Cool Farm Tool, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool that assesses greenhouse gas emissions per unit of agricultural product(s) and includes all emissions associated with the supply chain.

Following the exercise, the differences between the methods used within both assessment tools became clear. When comparing the results of the example farms Dairy Farm 4 had a negative carbon balance within the CALM tool (i.e. net carbon sequestration overall) due to the amount of woodland, whereas the same farm had the highest carbon footprint per litre of milk within the Cool Farm Tool as a result of the low milk yield (see Table 1).  Conversely, Farm 1 had a low carbon footprint when assessed with the Cool Farm Tool, due to a higher milk yield, and one of the highest footprints when assessed with CALM, due to high rate of diesel and electricity use.

Table 1: Carbon footprint results calculated for the example farms using CALM and the Cool Farm Tool:

The exercise highlighted the importance of the method used and the unit of comparison used when assessing the carbon footprint of farming systems.  The overall message was that the best approach is to use the same tool each year to monitor long term change due to wide differences in the results between the tools. At the workshop, most of the participants preferred the Cool Farm Tool as it was found to be easier to use and interpret the results, although the fact that sequestration can be more easily incorporated within CALM was appreciated (see Table 2).  For both tools the lack of benchmark data was felt to be a drawback as this makes it difficult to assess farm performance.

In the afternoon session, Marie Trydeman Knudsen of Aarhus University presented an overview of methods for assessing biodiversity and soil C within an LCA framework. The biodiversity assessment method that has been applied calculates a biodiversity loss index for production systems through the application of a Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) coefficient which is calculated in accordance with a method described in deSchryver et al. (2010). The calculation allows for an estimate of the Biodiversity Damage Potential amount (PDF/m2 occupied for the production of 1 kg of milk which can be presented alongside the results from ‘standard’ LCAs (e.g. the total GHG emissions per kg of milk).   The method for incorporating soil carbon sequestration within an LCA framework was also presented in the afternoon. The method suggested is an adaptation of the decay curves used within the Bern Carbon Cycle model, which represent the non-linear accumulation of soil organic carbon over a 100 year time-frame, following the addition of organic material. Both methods were well received by the participants. It was appreciated that calculation of the indicator for biodiversity loss and carbon sequestration at a specific farm did basically not require more data than is typically needed for an LCA of a dairy system, although some commented that the economic dimension is of primary importance for most farmers and it would be helpful if this element could be incorporated within the framework being developed.

Table 2: Views expressed on the strengths and weaknesses of the tools:

Overall the day provided a useful overview of the tools and methods currently available for UK dairy producers. The comments and feedback in the relation to the assessment tools and methods presented will be taken on board and considered within a task in work package 4 devoted to the production of a sustainability assessment toolbox.   A second workshop covering the same topic is planned to be held with representatives from the industry in Denmark in 2015.

The workshop organisers would like to thank the participants, the presenters and the authors of the carbon footprinting tools for their respective contributions to the day.

AUTHOR

References:

De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15: 682–691.

Carbon Accounting for Land Managers Tool – try it here.

 The Cool Farm Tool – try it here.

More pictures

This workshop will provide an overview of sustainability assessment methods and the various carbon footprinting tools available for UK dairy farmers. New methods for including soil carbon changes and biodiversity indicators within sustainability assessments will also be presented.

The day will consist of a mix of practical sessions (i.e. trying out existing tools and methods), feedback sessions and speaker presentations.

Read more.. 

Kostas’ research interests focus on interactions between genotype and nutrition on animal
productivity and health, on mechanisms that underlie the regulation of metabolism, nutrient partitioning and food intake in farm animals, as well as nutritional and environmental factors that affect the ability of animals to cope with disease.
He has a Ph.D. in animal health by nutrition interactions from the School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh and an MSc. in Animal Production and Nutrition from the University of Aberdeen. He undertook postdoctoral research at the Scottish Agricultural College on modelling breed/genotypic differences of farm animals in
production efficiency. Over the last four years he has carried out research at the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences on the effects of maturity stage at harvest and dietary inclusion rate of whole-crop maize silage on feed intake, eating behaviour and performance of finishing dairy bulls and ram lambs. Kostas is involved in the OptGraze (Optimal Grazing Strategy for Dairy Cows) project in collaboration with Bioforsk in Norway, as well as in the Core Organic funded project on The Improved Contribution of local feed to support 100% Organic feed supply to Pigs and Poultry (ICOPP). He is member of the Nutrition Society
(NS), the British Society of Animal Science (BSAS), the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (NJF) and the Hellenic Society of Animal Production (HSAP).

By Mark Measures, Organic Research Centre, Hamstead Marshall,  Newbury, WP1

Sustainability means different things to different people. Our aim has been to take a comprehensive view encompassing environmental, social and financial objectives, including the sometimes overlooked areas of animal welfare, role in the community and farm diversity as well as the more commonly stated objectives of profitability and yield.

The Rapid Assessment Tool was developed by the Organic Research Centre (The Public Good Tool) and was modified for the use in this project. It provides a simple, measurable and accessible way to begin the process of examining the sustainability of a farming system and its management, for both organic and low input farms. It usually takes half a day to undertake the farm assessment.

The individual farm is assessed through a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures over a given time period under 11 headings. The tool assesses the individual farm wherever possible, not merely the standards to which it conforms by using several indicators for each objective. For example, a nutrient budget is calculated which gives a guide as to whether there is a nutrient deficit or surplus across the farm. Under animal welfare, it asks about rates of mastitis and lameness in the herd as well as more qualitative, subjective questions e.g. about ability of the livestock to perform natural behaviour; the farm’s energy use is compared to standard benchmark data.

A cobweb (radar) diagram demonstrates the results of the assessment on each spur and can be quickly understood by the farmer. See example below:

Within the SOLID project the assessment was undertaken on 102 farms providing a starting point for discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the farms. The results are being used to inform research priorities in the project, building on those innovative practices already being used by farmers and addressing some of the significant shortfalls in other areas, such as feed self sufficiency.

Beyond the SOLID project, the tool has great potential as an advisory tool to help to demonstrate how a farm is doing, to identify priority areas for improvement and assess changes over time.

Such assessment and benchmarking provides a measurable and effective means of delivering more sustainable farming.