Environmental Impacts and Economic Differences in grassland based Organic Dairy Farms in Germany – Modelling the Extremes

Differences in environmental impact and economic returns between intensive and low-input organic dairy production are investigated using two simplified model farms with different amounts of concentrates being fed. In four scenarios, ecological and economic effects of restricting the more intensive farm management practice beyond the existing regulations of organic farming are analysed. In the initial situation, the intensive farm has a financial advantage of about 600.00 € per ha compared with the low-input farm, while the environmental risks caused by its production system are higher in several Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) categories. We showed for the model case that limiting livestock density and using regional grown concentrates bring about considerable improvements in LCA results, while restricting the amount of concentrates used does not. These three scenarios result in economic deterioration for the intensive farm. A fourth scenario increasing the share of pasture in daily dry matter intake (DMI) to a minimum of 50% during the grazing season has positive effects environmentally as well as economically

Leistungen und Entwicklung von Öko- Milchviehbetrieben mit geringem Kraftfuttereinsatz in Baden-Württemberg

The aim of this study was the analysis of dairy farms in Baden-Württemberg producing milk without or with only a little amount of concentrate. 12 biological managed farms have been visited and consulted by questionnaire in 2010. Also the results of milk yield testing have been examined. Economic calculations were run for a comparison to conventionally working dairy farms. In 2015 the results were for 10 of these farms updated. Since 2010 the structure of the farms remained almost unchanged (number of cows, milk yield, cultivated area). The proportion of pasture from grassland increased from 45 to 53%. The ecological-low input drived production system leads to better conditions for profitable milk production compared to conventional dairy farms

Produktionsstruktur und Kostenanalyse unterschiedlicher Typen ökologisch wirtschaftender Milchviehbetriebe

Production and business data from organic dairy farms in three German regions are being retrieved in a survey extending over several years. The farms are classified according to site conditions and feeding intensity, the latter being defined as the amount of concentrate use. In a parallel part of the project environmental impacts of the different production systems are analysed and confronted with the results obtained in view of productivity and cost effectiveness. While the variability of the business data is high and class differences do not in gen-eral prove to be statistically significant a tendency for lower production costs in sys-tems with larger herd size and more intensive feeding strategy is observed. Further investigations will separate the effects of intensity and size. Those systems that oper-ate in the most cost-effective way have shown to risk at the same time potential envi-ronmental damage especially through nutrient imbalances and resulting ammonia losses

Ökobilanz und Wirtschaftlichkeit ökologisch wirtschaftender Milchviehbetriebe mit unterschiedlicher Fütterungsintensität und Produktionsstruktur

Ziel des Projekts war die Analyse von Umweltwirkungen und Wirtschaftlichkeit unterschiedlicher Typen von ökologisch wirtschaftenden Milchviehbetrieben in Deutschland. Im Vordergrund standen dabei die Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Fütterungsintensität. Es wurden sechs modellhafte Betriebstypen formuliert, um die Bandbreite der Produktionssysteme innerhalb der ökologisch wirtschaftenden Milchviehbetriebe in Deutschland abzubilden. Die Modelle basieren auf einer Praxiserhebung von 39 Betrieben über 5 Wirtschaftsjahre und wurden aus Klassen von Betrieben auf vergleichbaren Standorten und mit ähnlicher Fütterungsintensität abgeleitet. Intensive Fütterung wirkt sich in der Umweltwirkungskategorie Treibhauseffekt positiv aus, auf Ackerbaustandorten auch im Bereich Energieverbrauch. Risiken bestehen bezüglich der regionalen und lokalen Umweltwirkungskategorien. Auf Ackerbaustandorten ist intensive Fütterung in ökologisch vertretbarer Weise möglich, wenn das erhebliche Stickstoff-Emissionsrisiko minimiert werden kann. Auf Grünlandstandorten ist extensivere Produktion aus ökologischer Sicht vorzuziehen. Maßgeblich ist der Kraftfutterimport je Flächeneinheit, der etwa 11 dt TM/ha nicht überschreiten sollte. Intensiv fütternde Betriebe sind zugleich größer und produzieren zu geringeren Stückkosten, könnten aber durch Erhöhung des Weideanteils in der Ration sowie eine Verbesserung der Kraftfuttereffizienz ökologisches wie ökonomisches Potential aktivieren. Extensiv fütternde Betriebe haben ihre ökologischen Stärken vor allem im biotischen Bereich. In der Umweltwirkungskategorie Treibhauseffekt sind sie, insbesondere wenn energieintensive Verfahren zur Grundfuttertrocknung eingesetzt werden, jedoch kritisch zu bewerten. Die Stückkosten der Milchproduktion sind bei diesen Betriebstypen, vor allem bei kleineren, vielfältig strukturierten Betrieben auf Ackerbaustandorten, sehr hoch. Derartige Betriebe sind nur dann langfristig existenzfähig, wenn die Mehrkosten durch entsprechende Vermarktungsmöglichkeiten wie z.B. Direktvermarktung oder Zuschläge für Silagefreie Fütterung bestehen, oder durch Umverteilung öffentlicher Direktzahlungen kompensiert werden können. Optimierungspotential bei diesen Betriebstypen besteht in der Kontrolle der Grundfutterqualität und in der Arbeitswirtschaft

Umweltwirkungen unterschiedlich intensiv wirtschaftender Milchviehbetriebe im Ökologischen Landbau in NRW

Organic dairy farms with different feeding intensity and production structure differ significantly in their environmental impacts; low input organic farms achieve a higher product quality and animal welfare and cause less environmental risk for sensitive ecosystems and water quality due to lower nitrogen emissions. Intensive organic farms achieve lower greenhouse gas emissions because of lower CH4 emissions per litre milk. However, the contribution of animal husbandry to global warming potential is relatively low and the aim of low CH4 emission runs contrary to ruminant welfare. Concerning the impact categories of biodiversity, product quality and energy con-sumption, the average ecological benefit of the farms is relatively low compared to the best single farm, indicating a high management influence

Diversifizierung des Silomaisanbaus

Dieses Forschungsvorhaben hat drei Schwerpunkte. Erstens wird die Attraktivität von Mais (Zea mays L.), angebaut im Gemenge mit Stangenbohnen (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), für verschiedene Artengruppen, z.B. Laufkäfer (Carabidae LATREILLE), untersucht. Zweitens wird die Futterqualität von Mais-Bohnen-Silagen für Milchkühe getestet. Drittens werden weitere Gemengepartner für den Mais geprüft. Erste Ergebnisse werden in 2019 erwartet

Effects of Stand Density and N Fertilization on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

Maize is Germany’s most important fodder and energy crop. However, pure maize cultivation has ecological disadvantages. Moreover, its yield is low in crude protein, an important feed quality parameter. Maize–bean intercropping can potentially address both issues. A bean variety specially developed for intercropping was first introduced in 2016. Using this variety, a network of institutions conducted 13 field trials from 2017 to 2020 on four sites in Germany. We sought to determine the effects of stand density and nitrogen (N) fertilization on dry matter yield, crude protein yield, and soil mineral N content (Nmin) at harvest of intercropped vs. pure maize. The three intercropping bean densities we tested (7.5, 5.5, and 4 plants/m2) produced non-significantly different yields of dry matter or crude protein, given a maize density of 7.5–8 plants/m2. Intercropping was inferior to pure maize in dry matter yield, but non-significantly different in crude protein yield. Under neither cropping strategy were significant losses in dry matter or crude protein yield recorded with reduced compared to full N fertilization. At full fertilization, however, both pure maize systems and the 8/4 maize–bean intercrop system left significantly higher Nmin at harvest than the other variants of the corresponding system or N fertilization level and thus an increased risk of nitrate leaching. We encourage further optimization of yield performance in maize–bean intercropping, e.g., through breeding or promotion of biological N fixation via rhizobia inoculation. Furthermore, we recommend reducing N fertilization levels in maize cultivation

Row-Intercropping Maize (Zea mays L.) with Biodiversity-Enhancing Flowering-Partners—Effect on Plant Growth, Silage Yield, and Composition of Harvest Material

Maize cultivation faces some challenges, particularly in terms of low biodiversity in fields. Since maize is a highly efficient and economic crop, it is cultivated on large areas in Germany, with a high share in crop rotation, especially where cattle farming takes place. Such landscapes provide less habitat and food resources for small vertebrates and arthropods. Intercropping maize with flowering partners might have a positive effect on the environment and might promote biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, in two-year field experiments on three sites in south-western Germany, plants were tested for their suitability as intercropping partners in maize crops (Medicago sativa, Melilotus officinalis, Vicia sativa, Tropaeolum majus, Cucurbita pepo, and Phaseolus vulgaris). Almost all tested partners produced flowers, except M. officinalis. Intercropping maize with P. vulgaris or T. majus achieved comparable dry matter yields as sole maize, without changes in the biomass quality. For maize-intercropping, site adapted weed control and practicable sowing technique are mandatory, which already exist for P. vulgaris and T. majus. The study shows that intercropping maize with biodiversity-enhancing flowering partners can provide an applicable alternative to sole maize cropping and enhance biodiversity. The large production areas of maize have great potential for ecological improvements in agriculture