Search

Het ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit heeft een aantal partijen gevraagd om samen een systematiek van Kritieke Prestatie Indicatoren (KPI) te ontwikkelen voor kringlooplandbouw (KPI-K). Om hiermee ervaringen op te doen en draagvlak te creëren zijn er gebiedspilots opgezet, waarvan een in de Achterhoek. In de Achterhoek wordt met het Markemodel al gewerkt aan de ontwikkeling van een regionaal netwerksturingsmodel voor een toekomstbestendige landbouw. De doelen van deze gebiedspilot waren 1) om de set van indicatoren van het landelijke KPI-K project te vergelijken met de negen kengetallen uit het Markemodel en 2) om bij te dragen aan de ontwikkeling van een KPI-waterkwantiteit. De indicatoren van beide sets zijn berekend en vergeleken voor de 35 boeren die zijn aangesloten bij het Markemodel. Daarbij is gebruik gemaakt van data uit de KringloopWijzer, de Milieumeetlat en gedane inventarisaties van natuur- en landschapselementen. Deze vergelijking laat zien dat de twee sets van indicatoren sterk overeenkomen voor zowel de thema’s als gekozen indicatoren. Voor de indicatoren in het thema Nutriënten (stikstof, ammoniak en fosfaat) overlappen de twee sets volledig. Binnen het thema Klimaat & Circulariteit zijn er enkele verschillen, binnen KPI-K worden de broeikasgasemissies zowel per hectare als per kilogram meetmelk berekend, terwijl deze binnen het Markemodel alleen per kilogram meetmelk meegenomen wordt. Daarnaast wordt voor de indicator Percentage eiwit van eigen land binnen het Markemodel de buurtaankoop meegenomen terwijl dit in de KPI-K set niet gedaan wordt. Hierdoor scoren de boeren voor deze indicator hoger in het Markemodel. Binnen het thema Bodem & Water is er verschil bij de indicator Gewasbeschermingsmiddelen. Beiden worden uitgedrukt in milieubelastingspunten (MBP) volgens de Milieumeetlat, bij KPI-K wordt additioneel het aantal overschrijdingen > 100 MBP meegeteld. Het effect van dit verschil is echter moeilijk te duiden omdat de aanvu

In recent years the term ‘nature-positive food systems’ has gained attention. Attention has evolved from global advocacy about the reciprocal relationship of food systems with nature towards really rethinking these systems based on these relations. The term, however, leaves room for interpretation, and a blurred understanding of the concept may undermine meaningful steps towards required change. Therefore we here explored how "nature-positive food systems" could be meaningfully defined, in a way that is beneficial for nature-positive transitions. To do so, we formulated a working definition, based on literature and internal discussions, acknowledging that defining nature-positive food systems is contextual and a process in which increasing shared understanding is the aim, not obtaining a final definition. As working definition, we refer to nature-positive food systems as food systems that have nature at the heart of decision-making and that will lead to increased biodiversity and improved ecosystem functioning through collective understanding and action. It is important to acknowledge that also nature-positive food systems need to provide sufficient and healthy food for people. The definition reflects five building blocks: “nature”, “positive”, “food systems”, “nature at the heart” and “collective understanding and action”. These reflect different components of the term “nature-positive food systems” and elements that were frequently mentioned in existing definitions of “nature-positive”. The five building blocks are explained in this report, referring to discussions in the literature and internally that have led to the working definition.

The last few years the term ‘Nature Positive Food Systems’ has gained attention as a result of global advocacy to rethink our food systems and the reciprocal relationship with nature. The food system is both impacting nature and benefiting from nature, and therefore key in achieving nature-positive ambitions. Most crucially the idea of ‘Nature Positive’ reflects the increasing global consensus on the ambition to not only halt biodiversity and ecosystem decline, but reverse the destruction of nature and regenerating nature. Moreover, the concept of ‘Nature Positive’ is not just about numbers, it is all about a different look: a positive look on nature and its interaction with the systems that feed us. The significant move from reducing harm to regenerating nature, raises the question if Food Systems can contribute and become nature positive themselves.The concept of ‘Nature Positive Food Systems’ consists of two elements: ‘nature positive’ and ‘food systems’.Food systems as the whole complex range from activities from farm to fork. In the food system approach the food system activities are already placed in between social and environmental drivers, addressing the functionalrelationships and interdependencies. If we define nature in its broadest sense, as often implied, this represents the environment in the food system approach: the external world in its entirety. It is not just about plants and animals, about habitats; it is also about soil, water and functioning ecosystems in all its diversity. Therefore, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are often used as an indicator for the state of nature.The figures are clearly pointing out the nature is under pressure. There is no single cause but most are involving human decision-making and are reflective of the human-nature relationship. Many of our key systems heavilydepend on the benefits of nature, which have been deteriorating over time. To this end, it is also clear that urgent action is required since reversal an

Dairy cows face many kinds of environmental challenges throughout their life, such as pathogens, sudden changes in feed quality, or heat waves. Resilient cows are cows that can cope well with such challenges – they are minimally affected and recover quickly. Having resilient cows is beneficial for both the cows themselves and farmers. We investigated if newly developed traits, based on daily milk yield can be used to genetically select for improved resilience. Cows change their milk yield in response to challenges. The hypothesis was, therefore, that daily patterns in milk yield can indicate resilience. Breeding for low variability in milk yield and for low autocorrelation, i.e. dependency between day-to-day deviations in milk yield, can help to improve resilience. Genetic improvement of resilience will likely improve welfare and profitability of cows, and improve job satisfaction of farmers.

Societal and ethical issues addressed in animal breeding studies from 1990 onwards were examined by means of a bibliometric analysis. Using a specific set of search terms in Scopus, 673 publications of potential interest for societal aspects of animal breeding were found. Subsequent manual selection resulted in 270 relevant studies. Across the period from 1990 to the present, the number of publications addressing societal or ethical aspects of animal breeding, mainly focussing on animal welfare and behaviour or genetic modification, increased from the year 2000 and peaked around 2010. Of the 270 publications, 24% explicitly mentioned ethics, mainly in relation to genetic modification, biotechnology or animal welfare/behaviour. The minority of the publications (32%) were experimental studies. To conclude, only a minor part of publications on animal breeding explicitly address societal issues and, of these, the minority explicitly addresses ethics.

Resilience is increasingly recognized as an important trait for dairy cattle to improve their functioning and welfare. The log transformed variance (LnVar) and autocorrelation (rauto) of daily milk yield deviations from an expected lactation curve have been studied as potential resilience indicators, so far only using data of Holstein Friesian cattle. The aim of this research was to compare the resilience indicators between different breeds present at Dutch dairy farms and to estimate the effect of crossbreeding on these indicators. Significant differences in LnVar and rauto were found across twelve breeds, with the breed effects on LnVar different from the effects on rauto. We estimated negligible heterosis effects for rauto and LnVar. This study suggests that different breeds respond differently to environmental disturbances and that different breeds might have different levels or types of resilience.

More biodiversity and genetic diversity in crops, trees, and livestock is considered an important strategy to improve resilience and sustainability of agricultural and forestry production systems that contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation. Plant and animal breeding need to provide well-adapted varieties and breeds that fit into these systems.In this report, we draw visions of five innovative agricultural production and forestry systems and used them in focus groups of scientists, breeders, and pioneer entrepreneurs to discuss the contribution of biodiversity and genetic diversity to the sustainability and resilience of the system, breeding goals, access to genetic material to realize the breeding goals, and the priorities for breeding and research. Although transition pathways can differ between systems, strategic research i should concentrate on the relationship between wider use of genetic resources, increasing beneficial species/breed/variety interactions, and the resilience of production systems.---Meer biodiversiteit en genetische diversiteit in gewassen, bossen en landbouwhuisdieren wordt beschouwd als een belangrijke strategie voor veerkrachtige en duurzame land- en bosbouwsystemen die bijdragen aan klimaatmitigatie en -adaptatie. Veredeling en fokkerij moeten goed aangepaste rassen leveren die passen bij deze systemen. In ditr apport schetsen wij vijf visies van innovatieve land- en bosbouwsystemen en hebben deze gebruikt in focusgroepdiscussies met wetenschappers, fokkers en veredelaars, en pioniers. Met hen hebben we de bijdrage van biodiversiteit en genetische diversiteit aan de duurzaamheid en weerbaarheid van het systeem, de fok- en veredelingsdoelen, de toegang tot genetisch materiaal om die doelen te realiseren, en de prioriteiten voor onderzoek bediscussieerd. Hoewel systemen kunnen verschillen in het transitiepad, is strategisch onderzoek nodig, gericht op de relatie tussen een breder gebruik van genetische bronnen, verbetering van gunstig

A bibliometric analysis was performed to explore to what degree published animal breeding studies (on cattle, pigs and poultry) explicitly address societal issues and ethics, and what themes were addressed. A combination of search terms in Scopus resulted in about 24,500 publications on farm animal breeding since 1990, of which 673 included a society- or ethics-related term. A two-person manual second (on titles) and third (on the title, key words and abstract) selection step reduced the number to 270 papers that met our criteria, so overall, about 1% of the identified published animal breeding studies explicitly refers to themes being a societal issue in the title, key words or abstract. The number of papers per publication year increased rapidly after the year 2001, and peaked around 2010. Animal welfare and behaviour (AW) was the trait that was addressed most, especially for poultry, and to a lesser extent also for pigs and cattle. Explicit reference to ethics was made in 65 (24%) of the 270 selected papers. In this ‘explicit on ethics’ subset, the themes genetic modification (GM), biotechnology (BT) and AW were dominant. The subset of studies on GM that explicitly mentioned ethics was assessed in more detail, to examine how, and to what extent, the topic of ethics was discussed, and whether specific actions were mentioned. The inclusion of ethics in these publications varied along a broad spectrum, ranging from ethics only being mentioned as being relevant to ethics being the main topic of the paper. Several studies called upon different stakeholders to take action, mainly in terms of actively taking part in discussions. This study concludes that: (1) the human eye/brain seems to be necessary to select on criteria in a bibliometric study like the present – the visual inspection removed about 60% of the ‘hits’ for being false positive; (2) animal breeding work on AW issues seems to be more prone to use wording that is explicit on societal issues compared to breed