B. El sistema de protección social uruguayo y los desafíos
2. Desigualdad de género: el cambio cultural
Pentti Seuri1, Muazzez Cömert Acar2, Yılmaz Şayan2, Akif Yörük3, Bahri Bayram4 Key words: dairy cows, sustainability, environment, self-sufficiency
1 Natural Resources Institute, Finland, www.luke.fi, email:[email protected] 2 Ege University, Turkey, www.ege.edu.tr. email: [email protected] 3 Atatürk University, Turkey
4 Gümüşhane University, Turkey
Role of Livestock in Sustainable Agriculture IAHA Pre-Conference on Organic Animal Husbandry November 7-8, 2017 linked to the 19th Organic World Congress, New Delhi, India, November 9-11, 2017 Organized by IAHA, FiBL, OFAI, NCOF, ICAR-IVRI , ANTHRA, IFOAM
Introduction
An integrated dairy farming system consists of a range of resource-saving practices. The aim of it is to achieve acceptable profits and high and sustained production levels, while preserving the environment and minimising the negative effects of intensive farming. Based on the principle of enhancing natural biological processes above and below the ground, the integrated system represents a winning combination that increases crop yields, soil biological activity and nutrient recycling; reduces erosion; intensifies land use, improving profits; and can therefore help reduce poverty and malnutrition and strengthen environmental sustainability (Rota and Sperandini, 2010). The increasing pressure on land and the growing demand for livestock products makes it more and more important to ensure the effective use of feed resources, including crop residues in Turkey. Self-sufficiency in feeding has a major impact on sustainability. When fodder is purchased from external sources the source is losing the nutrients and the potential of recycling, thus, nutrients are either being depleted, or scarce supplies are being used. The system receiving purchased fodder has the potential for environmental harm, e.g. eutrophication and this can lead to a severe waste of nutrients. In addition, the imbalance between the land and animals is a potential risk for other environmental problems e.g. poor crop rotation and erosion. The aim of the study was to evaluate organic dairy cow farms in Turkey for some of the sustainability parameters. Sustainability can be assessed in different dimensions. Our study dimension was the role of self-sufficiency and aimed to assess the consequences of different self-sufficiency levels on feeding.
Material and methods
A total of eleven farms from four different cities of Turkey (6 farms from Erzurum, 3 farms from 1 farm from Çanakkale and 1 farm from Manisa) were chosen to do survey (Figure 1). These cities have a high potential for organic dairy production in Turkey. There were 5 main themes in the questionnaire. A: Information on survey participant, B: Information about the farm (the size of the farm, the use of land, grazing practices, the quality of land, and the nutrient flows inside the farm, C: Production on the farm, D: External nutrient inputs and E: Number of animals.
The crop yields on the farms were calculated based on the number of animals and animal production (milk, beef). The fodder requirements for dairy cattle were estimated using the following equation:
Dry Matter (DM) intake (kg) = live weight (kg)/40 + milk yield (kg)/10 (Sevgican, 1996). The fodder requirements of young cattle for weight gain were estimated with the help of a constant value: 3250 kg DM/500 kg live weight (Sevgican, 1996).
After the total fodder requirements had been evaluated, they were classified as: grazing, own fodder produced on the farm (excluding grazing) and purchased fodder – all based on the
questionnaire. Information about cash crops was also gathered in the questionnaire so cash crops could be excluded from fodder production with respect to area and yield.
Results
The figures in Table 1 indicate the yields in fodder production of the farms.
GROUP I provided less than 50 % (30 – 50 %) of their own fodder. They were large farms (75 – 310 ha) with a high number of cows and high cow density (1.5 – 2.6 cow/ha). There was no grazing at all. Maize and barley were grown as well as legumes (alfalfa, trefoil). No cash crops were grown. Yields of were relatively high (5 – 9 t/ha DM as were milk yields (7 – 9 t/cow). All types of fodder, roughage, concentrate, and protein were purchased.
GROUP II supplied 50 – 75 % of their fodder on-farm. They were large farms (30 – 230 ha) with a high number of cows and a high cow density (1.0 – 2.0 cow/ha). Grazing rate varied (0 – 60 % of total fodder), some cash crops were grown (olives and wheat). Less maize was grown than in GROUP I but similar types of crops are grown. Yield levels were similar to GROUP I (6 – 10 t/ha DM); but milk yields were slightly lower (5 – 8.5 t/cow).
GROUP III grew 75 – 100 % of the fodder on-farm. They were small farms (19 – 105 ha) with a low number of cows; cow density being notably lower than in the other groups (0.4 – 1.0 cow/ha). Grazing was an important feeding strategy on most of the farms. Some cash crops were grown on most of the farms. Fodder crops were similar to the other groups, but maize was only grown on one farm. Yield level was slightly lower than in the other groups (3 – 7 t/ha DM) and milk yields were lower (5 – 7 t/cow).
There was also a positive correlation between cow density and yield level, but a causal connection cannot be proven because of limited data.
Table 1: Characteristics of the farms in each group, mean (range)
GROUP I, (n=3) own fodder less than 50%
GROUP II, (n=3)
own fodder 50 % - 75 %
GROUP III, (n=5) own fodder more than 75% Own fodder, % 40 (30-50) 70 (70) 90 (80-100) Field, ha 188 (75-310) 153 (30-230) 44 (19-105) Cow/ha 2.0 (1.5-2.6) 1.6 (1.0-2.0) 0.7 (0.4-1.0) Yield* kg DM/ha 6433 (5000-8700) 7267 (5600-10200) 4260 (1800-6500) Grazing, % 0 22 (0-60) 35 (0-65) Cash crop,% 0 11 (0-32) 24 (0-42)
Milk yield kg/cow 8167 (7000-9000) 6167 (5000-8500) 5400 (5000-7000) DM: Dry matter *Yields are excluding grazing and cash crops.
Discussion
Animal production based on purchased fodder makes it possible to accumulate an excess of nutrients. Furthermore, this makes it possible to ignore crop rotation from a nutrient point of view. Organic systems are most likely to be short of nitrogen. Nitrogen can be supplemented by legumes. In this survey, there was a tendency to grow maize more at a low self-sufficiency level than at high level. This indicates a surplus of nitrogen in farm yard manure as maize is high yielding but one of the most nitrogen demanding crops
The data in this survey indicated a very wide range of self-sufficiency in feeding (30 – 100%), cow density (0.4 – 2.6 cow/ha) and grazing practices (0 – 65 % of total feeding). Thus, no “typical” Turkish organic dairy farm could be defined. However, the key issue in organic production is ecological sustainability. The present practice of organic production pays a lot of attention to organic nature of inputs (e.g. purchased fodder), but less attention has been paid to the real origin of inputs. There is a huge difference if fodder is purchased from distant regions, or if its origin is the neighbouring farm. There was a clear negative correlation between the self-sufficiency and milk yield per cow in this case-study. This demonstrates the reality, that farms which have low self-sufficiency are able to choose high quality fodder. The farms with high self-sufficiency are highly dependent on on-farm biomass production. They could improve the quality of fodder for dairy cattle if animal production was more diversified. Beef cattle, sheep and goats can utilise lower quality biomass more efficiently compared to modern breeds of dairy cows. But diversification of production on the farm is not an option in most cases because of economic and technical limitations. So, more diversity in animal production can be implemented by integrating neighbouring farms.
The regional integration between the organic farms could be enhanced. The crop farms are losing a lot of nutrients in the form of cash crops, and at the same time there is surplus of nutrients on the less self-sufficient animal farms. With the help of close regional integration between the farms a more balanced system could be created. However, support by public authorities will be needed in most cases. Additionally, legislation on organic production should pay more attention to the functioning of the systems. Locality cannot be ignored as a fundamental pillar of sustainable agriculture. Also, some practical evaluation tools could be developed in order to evaluate the sustainability of systems. As Seuri (2013) has shown, the present nutrient balances (farm gate balance, surface balance) cannot evaluate the role of nutrient circulation correctly i.e. no difference between the primary and secondary nutrients is identified by those tools. Primary nutrient balance (Seuri, 2013) could be a step forward; however, some systematic data from farms need to be provided.
Reference list
Rota, A. and Sperandini, S (2010) Integrated crop-livestock farming systems. Livestock Thematic Papers Tools for project design. IFAD Report, February, 8 p.
Seuri, P. (2013) Chapter 3.1. Primary nutrient balance. In: Conversion to ecological recycling
agriculture and society: Environmental, economic and sociological assessments and scenarios / eds. A. Granstedt and P. Seuri. Beras Implementation Reports 3: p. 21-26.
Sevgican F., (1996) Nutrition of ruminants (Ruminantlarin beslenmesi) (1. Basım). (Ege University Faculty of Agriculture Lecture Book (Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Ders Kitabı), Publication No (Yayın No):524. 228 p.
Abstract
In 1975, when I started farming with goats, the concepts of “Bio” and “Eco” in Austria and Europe were new and not well defined. They were hazy notions taking a negative approach with an emphasis on not doing “the wrong things”.
By the 1980s a significant change started. Chemicals used in agriculture and gardening were replaced by traditional cultivation methods and applications of herbal extracts. New concepts of animal housing, providing adequate light, space and activity, entered livestock husbandry. Rules for organic farmers formed the new guidelines for small scale agriculture. A green movement had confidently begun, but the structure of the movement was fragile. Intense discussions were held on the future goals, out of which emerged a handful of clearly delineated movements.
Around the turn of the century the mainstream food market companies discovered the potential of the niche organic food market and started to integrate products into their ranges (about 5-10% Europe wide).
The last ten years have seen a dramatic change. Big organic farms are growing and receive support through subsidies and from industry. Regional production now has little meaning and quality has lower value. Local production and sale networks cannot compete with international transport strategies, thus small farmers are losing their place and their power.
In response, I have aligned with the International Slow Food Movement, where “good, clean and fair” are the key words of a new generation of farmers who are self-confident, flexible, small scale and visionary, linking traditional knowledge with modern techniques. And where “joy and justice” are essential parts of a farmer’s life.