4.1. Technological options
4.2. Policy options
The main environmental impact of the LLR systems is related to N and P emissions as a result of manure production and inadequate manure management. Other environmental concerns are methane production (which is partly related to manure management) and the consequences of the high demand for concentrates. More indirect effects of LLR systems are the environmental consequences and problems related to the processing of products (slaughterhouses and tanneries).
A positive contribution of LLR systems to the environment is the utilization of by-products from the agro-processing industry. An increase or decrease of LLR systems has hardly an impact on the pressure on rangelands.
Technological options to improve the environmental effects of LLR systems are pinpointed at reduction of the emissions from manure and increased utilization of by-products as feed. Reduction of emissions from manure during and after application to soils are discussed by Brandjes et al. (1995). Reductions of emissions from the processing of animal products are discussed by Verheyen et al. (1995).
Reduction of nutrient losses from manure.
In most LLR systems there is scarcely any manure surplus because generally there is sufficient land in the vicinity to apply the manure. Nevertheless, nutrient losses are high because manure management has received little attention. Unlined, unpaved open feedlots incur high losses from runoff, leaching and volatilization. In some cases runoff is prevented from entering surface water directly and is first treated in lagoons. However, this only solves the problem of direct water pollution by organic matter and not of eutrophication due to nutrients. Also, dumping and even direct discharge to surface water is still occurring. Treatment of manure before discharging it to surface water, including tertiary treatment to remove nutrients is a prerequisite, though it does not solve the problem of high CH4 and N2O losses.
Even in cases where farmers do pay attention to fertilization rates, losses are high, due to inadequate estimates, timing, etc. In most LLR systems, increased urine collection and manure storage capacity is a precondition to improve manure management. Moreover, improved manure storage facilities are usually available, mainly requiring sealing and roofing.
In some cases, particularly in EE and the CIS, major extension efforts are needed to improve manure management (including application!) and an increase in awareness and knowledge of manure management issues.
Another option is to reduce the amount of manure and nutrients produced. The efficiency of N and P utilization by ruminants is low, around 15% and 25% respectively for feedlot beef cattle. The efficiency depends, among other things, on the degree the ration is balanced and on the ratio production and maintenance feed. Adjustment of feed rations to increase efficiency reduces N and P excretion has been discussed by Brandjes et al. (1995). The use of ionophores and growth hormones can increase efficiency even further, but the use of these compounds is increasingly confronted with public concern for "clean meat". More balanced feed rations to improve feed conversion rates are especially relevant for the state and collective livestock sector in EE and the CIS, requiring higher levels of protein and better quality roughage.
As LLR systems are part of a stratified production system, there are options to reduce the fattening period in LLR systems and to develop land-based fattening systems.
This may, however, contradict the intention to increase the proportion of by-products and waste products in the ration, so as to improve the function of ruminants as waste converters. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the present animal numbers can be raised from only waste and by-products.
Bos and de Wit (1995) have described the policy options for reducing the environmental effects of LLM systems, most of them are also valid for LLR systems. The main difference is that most LLR production units seem to have access to sufficient land for manure application within reasonable distance of the livestock production unit, i.e. are fairly land-based at a regional level.
Environmental problems are nearly always related to inadequate manure management as a result of indifference of the entrepreneur, low opportunity value of manure (artificial low fertilizer prices) or the size of the production units.
The policy options to mitigate negative and enhance positive effects of the LLR systems are (1) price policies; and (2) permits for operation of LLR production units.
Price policies:
- include the cost of the disposal of (surplus) manure in the cost of production;Permits for operation- stimulate the use of by-products and waste products through reducing prices and through taxing the disposal of waste products;
- introduction of a levy on the production of any type of by-product or waste product;
- introduction of certificates for environmental friendly produced products; and
- abolish subsidies on fertilizers and if necessary introduce levies on artificial fertilizer to increase the value of animal manure.
- permits for operation and expansion of LLR farms based on access to sufficient land for the disposal of manure;.Legislation and permits are mainly applicable in situations where only a small number of production units is involved (e.g. only a few hundred in the USA; Perry, 1992) and control is feasible. In other situations where price policies would seem to be applicable, the main disadvantage are trade-offs and consequent opposition from other sectors. The feasibility of the different types of options is, however, highly dependent on the many variable socio-economic conditions, like local salaries of controlling administrators, law enforcement capacity of governments, effects of the policies on other sectors, political and economic power of the different sectors involved, and public support. For instance, the barley subsidies, are a major macro-economic burden and ineffective to control rangeland degradation, the removal of the subsidies has clear advantages and will probably result in sharp decrease of the sheep fattening system. However, these subsidies are not easily removed as it also affects bread prices and removal could result in social unrest (Treacher, 1993).- permits for operations and expansion of LLR farms based on a maximum farm size and on the total livestock density in an area, (to prevent a too high NH3 emission which causes acid rain and N deposition)
- include in the permits for operation technical specification for housing, manure collection, storage, application and disposal.
The effect of the different types of policies can be discussed for specific situations only, but is beyond the scope of this study. For instance, the introduction of a compulsory nutrient accounting system for all farmers to serve the objective to achieve low mineral surpluses per ha. (e.g. 10 kg P2O5, see Brandjes et al., 1995). This could result in higher animal manure surpluses in situations where both pure arable farmers and intensive livestock farmers are present, as arable farmers are likely to prefer artificial fertilizer instead of animal manure to attain the low allowable surplus at higher levels of crop production. Moreover, this nutrient accounting system probably also causes an increase of unusable waste as intensive livestock farmers would eliminate low digestible feedstuffs, which include a considerable part of the by-products.
