Henk Westhoek

The nitrogen footprint of food products in the European Union

Nitrogen (N) is an essential element for plants and animals. Due to large inputs of mineral fertilizer, crop yields and livestock production in Europe have increased markedly over the last century, but as a consequence losses of reactive N to air, soil and water have intensified as well. Two different models (CAPRI and MITERRA) were used to quantify the N flows in agriculture in the European Union (EU27), at country-level and for EU27 agriculture as a whole, differentiated into 12 main food categories. The results showed that the N footprint, defined as the total N losses to the environment per unit of product, varies widely between different food categories, with substantially higher values for livestock products and the highest values for beef (c. 500 g N/kg beef), as compared to vegetable products. The lowest N footprint of c. 2 g N/kg product was calculated for sugar beet, fruits and vegetables, and potatoes. The losses of reactive N were dominated by N leaching and run-off, and ammonia volatilization, with 0·83 and 0·88 due to consumption of livestock products. The N investment factors, defined as the quantity of new reactive N required to produce one unit of N in the product varied between 1·2 kg N/kg N in product for pulses to 15–20 kg N for beef.

Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity

Livestock production systems currently occupy around 28% of the land surface of the European Union (equivalent to 65% of the agricultural land). In conjunction with other human activities, livestock production systems affect water, air and soil quality, global climate and biodiversity, altering the biogeochemical cycles of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon. Here, we quantify the contribution of European livestock production to these major impacts. For each environmental effect, the contribution of livestock is expressed as shares of the emitted compounds and land used, as compared to the whole agricultural sector. The results show that the livestock sector contributes significantly to agricultural environmental impacts. This contribution is 78% for terrestrial biodiversity loss, 80% for soil acidification and air pollution (ammonia and nitrogen oxides emissions), 81% for global warming, and 73% for water pollution (both N and P). The agriculture sector itself is one of the major contributors to these environmental impacts, ranging between 12% for global warming and 59% for N water quality impact. Significant progress in mitigating these environmental impacts in Europe will only be possible through a combination of technological measures reducing livestock emissions, improved food choices and reduced food waste of European citizens.

Potential of extensification of European agriculture for a more sustainable food system; the case for nitrogen and livestock

Most global strategies for future food security focus on sustainable intensification of production of food and involve increased use of nitrogen fertilizer and manure. The external costs of current high nitrogen (N) losses from agriculture in the European Union, are 0.3–1.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008. We explore the potential of sustainable extensification for agriculture in the EU and The Netherlands by analysing cases and scenario studies focusing on reducing N inputs and livestock densities. Benefits of extensification are higher local biodiversity and less environmental pollution and therefore less external costs for society. Extensification also has risks such as a reduction of yields and therewith a decrease of the GDP and farm income and a smaller contribution to the global food production, and potentially an i0ncrease of global demand for land. We demonstrate favourable examples of extensification. Reducing the N fertilization rate for winter wheat in Northwest Europe to 25–30% below current N recommendations accounts for the external N cost, but requires action to compensate for a reduction in crop yield by 10–20%. Dutch dairy and pig farmers changing to less intensive production maintain or even improve farm income by price premiums on their products, and/or by savings on external inputs. A scenario reducing the Dutch pig and poultry sector by 50%, the dairy sector by 20% and synthetic N fertilizer use by 40% lowers annual N pollution costs by 0.2–2.2 billion euro (40%). This benefit compensates for the loss of GDP in the primary sector but not in the supply and processing chain. A 2030 scenario for the EU27 reducing consumption and production of animal products by 50% (demitarean diet) reduces N pollution by 10% and benefits human health. This diet allows the EU27 to become a food exporter, while reducing land demand outside Europe in 2030 by more than 100 million hectares (2%), which more than compensates increased land demand when changing to organic farming. We conclude that in Europe extensification of agriculture is sustainable when combined with adjusted diets and externalization of environmental costs to food prices.

Societal choice and communicating the European nitrogen challenge

Nature of the problem (science/management/policy) Increased public and institutional awareness of both the benefi ts and threats of nitrogen has the potential to greatly increase the effi cacy • of nitrogen policy. Insuffi cient recognition of the fi nancial, behavioural and cultural barriers to achieving an optimal nitrogen future risks policy antago• nisms and failure. Here we examine some of the key societal levers for and barriers to achieving an optimal nitrogen future in Europe, drawing lessons • from the more-developed societal and policy challenge of climate change mitigation.

Nitrogen use and food production in European regions from a global perspective.

Current production systems for crops, meat, dairy and bioenergy in the European Union (EU) rely strongly on the external input of nitrogen (N). These systems show a high productivity per unit of land. However, the drawback is a complex web of N pollution problems contributing in a major way to degradation of ecosystems. European Union Directives and national policies have improved nutrient management and reduced fertilizer N use in most European countries, which has curbed the N pollution trends particularly in regions with high stocking rates of animals. However, improvement is slowing down and environmental targets for N are not within reach. Building on the 2011 European Nitrogen Assessment, the current paper reviews key features of the complex relationships between N use and food production in Europe in order to develop novel options for a more N-efficient, less N-polluting and secure European food system. One option is to relocate feed and livestock production from Northwestern to Central and Eastern Europe. This would allow a reduction of N rates and N pollution in cereal production in Northwest Europe by 30% (50 kg N/ha), while increasing total cereal production in Europe. Another option is a change towards legume-based cropping systems to produce animal feed, in order to decrease dependence on N fertilizer and feed imports. The greatest challenge for Europe is to decrease the demand for feed commodities, and thus for land and N, by a shift to more balanced (and healthier) diets with less animal protein. These drastic changes can be stimulated by targeted public–private research funding, while the actual implementation can be enhanced by smart payment schemes using, for example money from the Common Agricultural Policy, certification and agreements between stakeholders and players in the food and energy chain. Involving networks of consumers, producers and non-governmental organizations is critical. An effective strategy starts with convincing consumers with aWestern diet to eat less meat and dairy by communicating the associated health benefits and smaller ecological footprints. Internalizing the cost of N pollution leading to increased prices for N-intensive food products may also enhance involvement of consumers and provide financial resources to compensate farmers for loss of income and extra costs for stricter N measures.