A Circularity Evaluation of New Feed Categories in The Netherlands—Squaring the Circle: A Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Methodological Notes
2. Dutch Feed Practices
2.1. The Menu
2.2. Sustainability Issues
3. A Circularity Assessment Framework—‘Squaring the Circle’
Circularity Criteria
- “Designing out waste and pollution.” The foundation claims that this principle can be achieved by decoupling economic activities and welfare from the depletion of finite resources.
- “Keep products and materials in use.”
- “Regenerate natural systems,” implying that not only protective practices are required but also that we might actively improve the environment.
- “Do they contribute to closing cycles, to reduce emissions and to reduce biomass wastage throughout the food system?
- With regard to fisheries, does it contribute to sustainable stock management without damaging the natural environment?
- Do they strengthen the socio-economic position of the famer in the supply chain?
- Do they contribute to the climate task for agriculture and land use?
- Do they enhance the appeal and vitality of the countryside and contribute to a thriving regional economy?
- Do they benefit ecosystems (water, soil, air), biodiversity and the natural value of the farming landscape?
- Has animal welfare been considered?
- Do they contribute to the recognition of the value of food and to strengthening the relationship between farmers and citizens?
- Do they strengthen the position of The Netherlands as a developer and exporter of integrated solutions for climate-smart and ecologically sustainable food systems?”
- “Plant biomass is the basic building block of food and should be used by humans first
- By-products from food production, processing and consumption should be recycled back into the food system
- Use animals for what they are good at, transforming human inedible plants and organic matter into high quality human edible proteins”
- Safeguard the health of (agro)ecosystems. The aim here and the core of the circularity approach is conservation and restauration of ecosystems to achieve clean soil, air, and water. This might imply the deployment of agricultural systems that produce a minimal amount of, or no, greenhouse gas emissions at all, or that do not produce excessive nutrients. It might also imply zero deforestation. These researchers also propose systems that might fit this criterium such as agroforestry, intercropping, and the like.
- Avoid non-essential products, and losses and waste of essential ones. The idea here is that ‘avoiding’ is better than recycling and should precede this. In this way, upstream production processes and associated impacts are avoided.
- Use biomass effectively, recycle inevitable and unavoidable biomass streams (Please note that de Boer et al. formulate these as two separate principles, (1) effectively use and (2) recycle. We think that it makes sense to combine them. Moreover, they propose other related and integrable principles that are beyond the scope of this research. For instance, minimizing renewable energy usage in productive processes, which implies avoiding energy use of non-renewable sources [44]). The objective here is to employ agricultural fertile soils or natural waters primarily for the production of food, rather than for feed or other less relevant commodities such as biomass or biofuels, in the light of poverty and hunger and the deterioration of nature by productive activities. So, the argument goes, to feed livestock with fish meal is not a solution within this circularity principle [31]. This is a key principle regarding feed indeed. In a vision regarding the Dutch future of food, de Boer et al. (www.wur.nl/en/show-longread/Re-rooting-the-Dutch-food-system-from-more-to-better.htm (accessed on 1 January 2021)) (see also [2]) argue that
“[...] fertile arable land is no longer used to produce feed crops for animals. Plant biomass is the primary source of food for humans.” [...] “By-products that cannot be prevented, eaten by humans or are not needed to restore or conserve soil fertility are given to farm animals (including farmed fish or insects), who can convert them into valuable food and manure. A circular food system will be the new paradigm as valuable nutrients are recycled from soil, water and the atmosphere into living organisms and back, and across farms and regions.”
- “Reducing input of resources, especially scarce ones
- Reducing emission levels (pollutants and GHG emissions)
- Reducing material losses/waste
- Increasing input of renewable and recycled resources
- Maximising the utility and durability of products”
- “Creating local jobs at all skill level
- Value added creation and distribution
- Increase social wellbeing”
- Safeguard the health of ecosystems. Circular feed categories contribute to achieve or maintain healthy soils and clean air and water. To evaluate key categories, we focus here on their possible effects on contamination, biodiversity protection (think of ammonia emissions), and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Avoid the production of unnecessary products and use/recycle biomass effectively (food vs. feed). There are many relevant related issues regarding this principle. For example, the overall necessity of a specific feed source, are there other possible feed sources which now better meet the current feed needs and circularity demands? To answer this question, one should focus on the whole food system and chains; this is, however, beyond the scope of this research. Here, we evaluate circularity feed sources by focussing on some issues regarding the usage and reusage of biomass and the possible competition of feed with food for land and other resources.
- Fairness and accessibility. Circular feed practices are fair at the social and economic level contributing to social wellbeing. Here, we focus on the ability of feed categories and initiatives to create or maintain employment at different skill levels, generate economic profit while guaranteeing the current, in The Netherlands, accessibility (relative low prices) to (quality and healthy) food. When required, some general observations of possible impacts at the global level might be integrated.
- Animal health and wellbeing. Feed is aimed at feeding animals, so a baseline condition and assessment criteria are that the feeds and practices produced do not negatively affect farm animal health and wellbeing. Neither do they affect negatively human health.
4. Circularity Feed Categories and Initiatives in The Netherlands
- Food waste;
- Seaweed/macroalgae;
- Localized production and alternative plant-based feed sources.
4.1. Food Waste
4.1.1. Evaluation
Safeguard the Health of Ecosystems
Avoid the Production of Unnecessary Products and Use/Recycle Biomass Effectively (Food vs. Feed)
Fairness and Accessibility
Animal Health and Wellbeing
4.2. Seaweed/Macroalgae
4.2.1. Evaluation
Safeguard the Health of Ecosystems
Avoid the Production of Unnecessary Products and Use/Recycle Biomass Effectively (Food vs. Feed)
Fairness and Accessibility
Animal Health and Wellbeing
4.3. Localized Production and Alternative Plant-Based Feed Sources
4.3.1. Soya Beans
4.3.2. Sorghum and Lupine
4.3.3. Ditches, Creeks and Streams, and Roadside Management Produced Biomass/Residual Flows
4.3.4. Evaluation
Safeguard the Health of Ecosystems
Avoid the Production of Unnecessary Products and Use/Recycle Biomass Effectively (Food vs. Feed)
Fairness and Accessibility
Animal Health and Wellbeing
5. Reflection and the Circular Way Forward
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Herrero, O.; van Hal, E.; Röös, A.; Muller, T.; Grarnett, P.J.; Gerber, C.; Shcader, C.; de Boer, I.J.M. Defining a Land Boundary for Sustainable Livestock Consumption. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, 4185–4194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Hal, O. Upcycling Biomass in a Circular Food System—The Role of Livestock and Fish. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Mottet, A.; de Haan, C.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; Gerber, P. Livestock: On Our Plates or Eating at Our Table? A New Analysis of the Feed/Food Debate. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 14, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, J.P.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Reisinger, A.; Clark, H. How Much Do Direct Livestock Emissions Actually Contribute to Global Warming? Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 24, 1749–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoumans, O.; Ehlert, P.; Hanegraaf, M.; Römkens, P.; Pustjens, A.; de Koeijer, T.; de Boer, H.; Nienhuis, C.; Kortstee, H.; Smit, A.; et al. Development of a Conceptual Framework to Evaluate Organic Fertilisers: Assessment on Soil Quality and Agronomic, Environmental and Economics Aspects; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bouwman, A.F.; Beusen, A.; Lassaletta, L.; Van Apeldoorn, D.F.; Van Grinsven, H.J.M.; Zhang, J.; van Ittersum, M. Lessons from Temporal and Spatial Patterns in Global Use of N and P Fertilizer on Cropland. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leip, A.; Billen, G.; Garnier, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Lassaletta, L.; Reis, S.; Simpson, D.; Sutton, M.A.; de Vries, W.; Weiss, F.; et al. Impacts of European Livestock Production: Nitrogen, Sulphur, Phosphorus and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land-Use, Water Eutrophication and Biodiversity. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 115004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Closing the Loop—An Eu Action Plan for the Circular Economy—Com(2015) 614 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Measuring Progress Towards Circular Economy in the European Union—Key Indicators for a Monitoring Framework—Com(2018) 29 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Åkerman, M.; Humalisto, N.; Pitzen, S. Material Politics in the Circular Economy: The Complicated Journey from Manure Surplus to Resource. Geoforum 2020, 116, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LNV. Agriculture, Nature and Food: Valuableand Connected. The Netherlands as a Leader in Circular Agriculture; Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of The Netherlands (LNV): The Hague, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- LNV. Plan of Action New Perspective for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality; Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of The Netherlands: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Jukema, D.G.; Ramaekers, P.; Berkhout, P. De Nederlandse Agrarische Sector in Internationaal Verband—Editie 2021; Wageningen Economic Research & Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Nevedi. Grondstoffenwijzer; Diervoeders Voor Een Circulaire Voedselproductie; 3rd ed.; Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi): Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- TLN. Resultaten Ketenonderzoek Diervoeder; Transport en Logistiek Nederland (TLN): Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- SecureFeed. SecureFeed Jaarverslag 2019; SecureFeed: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- OPNV. Minder Afzet Vochtrijke Diervoeders in 2019. Afzet Van Vochtrijke Voedermiddelen in 2019; Overleggroep Producten Natte Veevoeders (OPNV): Venray, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Comité Het. Dutch Trade in Grains, Seeds and Pulses; Royal Dutch Grain and Feed Trade Association Het Comité: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- FEFAC. Feed & Food 2020; European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC): Brussel, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Taelman, S.E.; De Meester, W.; van Dijk, W.; da Silva, V. Environmental Sustainability Analysis of a Protein-Rich Livestock Feed Ingredient in The Netherlands: Microalgae Production Versus Soybean Import. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, P.M.; Hogerwerf, L.; Bokkers, E.A.; Baumann, B.; Fischer, P.; Rutledge-Jonker, S.; Hilderink, H.; Hollander, A.; Hoogsteen, M.J.; Liebman, A.; et al. Effects of Dutch Livestock Production on Human Health and the Environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, J.F.; Smit, A.B.L.; Schröder, J.J. Is Agricultural Intensification in The Netherlands Running up to Its Limits. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2013, 66, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leenstra, F.; Vellinga, T.; Neijenhuis, F.; de Buiseonjé, F.; Gollenbeek, L. Manure: A Valuable Resource; Wageningen Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Pexas, G.; Mackenzie, S.G.; Wallace, M.; Kyriazakis, I. Environmental Impacts of Housing Conditions and Manure Management in European Pig Production Systems through a Life Cycle Perspective: A Case Study in Denmark. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 120005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pacheco, P.; Mo, K.; Dudley, N.; Shapiro, A.; Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N.; Ling, P.Y.; Anderson, C.; Marx, A. Deforestation Fronts: Drivers and Responses in a Changing World; World Wide Fund for Nature Gland: Gland, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Hoste, R.; Judge, L. Impact Assessment of the Dutch Transition Towards Certified Soy; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- De Maria, M.; Robinson, E.J.Z.; Kangile, J.R.; Kadigi, R.; Dreoni, I.; Couto, M.; Howai, N.; Peci, J.; Fiennes, S. Global Soybean Trade. The Geopolitics of a Bean. UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (UKRI GCRF) Trade. Dev. Environ. Hub 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilling-Vacaflor, A.; Lenschow, A.; Challies, E.; Cotta, B.; Newig, J. Contextualizing Certification and Auditing: Soy Certification and Access of Local Communities to Land and Water in Brazil. World Dev. 2021, 140, 105281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Boer, I.J.M.; van Ittersum, M.K. Circularity in Agricultural Production; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- van der Meer, R.W. Watergebruik in De Land- En Tuinbouw, 2015 En 2016; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- zu Ermgassen, E.K.; Phalan, B.; Green, R.E.; Balmford, A. Reducing the Land Use of Eu Pork Production: Where There’s Swill, There’sa Way. Food Policy 2016, 58, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Virah-Sawmy, M.; Durán, A.P.; Green, J.M.; Guerrero, A.M.; Biggs, D.; West, C.D. Sustainability Gridlock in a Global Agricultural Commodity Chain: Reframing the Soy–Meat Food System. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, D.; Ames, R.T. Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture; State University of New York Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Fidelis, M.; De Moura, C.; Junior, T.K.; Pap, N.; Mattila, P.H.; Mäkinen, S.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Tian, Y.; Yang, B.; et al. Fruit Seeds as Sources of Bioactive Compounds: Sustainable Production of High Value-Added Ingredients from by-Products within Circular Economy. Molecules 2019, 24, 3854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraga, G.; Huysveld, S.; Mathieux, F.; Blengini, G.A.; Alaerts, L.; Van Acker, K.; de Meester, S.; Dewulf, J. Circular Economy Indicators: What Do They Measure? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calisto Friant, M.C.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Salomone, R. A Typology of Circular Economy Discourses: Navigating the Diverse Visions of a Contested Paradigm. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 61, 104917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Termeer, C.J.; Dewulf, A. A Small Wins Framework to Overcome the Evaluation Paradox of Governing Wicked Problems. Policy Soc. 2019, 38, 298–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Haas, W.; van Hoof, L.; De Koning, S.; de Lauwere, C.; Pleitje, M.; Puente-Rodríguez, D. Experimenteren Om Te Leren; Governance in De Transitie Naar Kringlooplandbouw; Wageningen Environmental Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Dagevos, H.; Lauwere, C. Circular Business Models and Circular Agriculture: Perceptions and Practices of Dutch Farmers. Sustainability 2013, 3, 1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muscat, A.; de Olde, E.M.; Ripoll-Bosch, R.; Van Zanten, H.H.E.; Metze, T.A.P.; Termeer, C.J.; Van Ittersum, M.K.; de Boer, H.C. Principles, Drivers and Opportunities of a Circular Bioeconomy. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Zwarte, I.; Candel, J. Tien Miljard Monden: Hoe We De Wereld Gaan Voeden in 2050; Prometheus: Amherst, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dawson, C.; Hilton, J. Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 2011, 36, S14–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissler, B.; Hermann, L.; Mew, M.C.; Steiner, G. Striving toward a Circular Economy for Phosphorus: The Role of Phosphate Rock Mining. Minerals 2018, 8, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trimmer, J.T.; Guest, J.S. Recirculation of Human-Derived Nutrients from Cities to Agriculture across Six Continents. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Middelkoop, J.C.; Holshof, G. Nitrogen Fertilizer Replacement Value of Concentrated Liquid Fraction of Separated Pig Slurry Applied to Grassland. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 1132–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Linden, A.; de Olde, E.M.; Mostert, P.F.; de Boer, I.J.M. A Review of European Models to Assess the Sustainability Performance of Livestock Production Systems. Agric. Syst. 2020, 182, 102842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corona, B.; Shen, L.; Reike, D.; Carreón, J.R.; Worrell, E. Towards Sustainable Development through the Circular Economy—A Review and Critical Assessment on Current Circularity Metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt-Giménez, E.; Shattuck, A.; Altieri, M.; Herren, H.; Gliessman, S. We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People and Still Can’t End Hunger. J. Sustain. Agric. 2012, 36, 595–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.B.; Watson, R.R.; Takahashi, T. The Role of Functional Food Security in Global Health; Elsevier Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gordillo, G.; Jerónimo, O.M. Food Security and Sovereignty: Base Document for Discussion; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kallis, G.; Kostakis, V.; Lange, S.; Muraca, B.; Paulson, S.; Schmelzer, M. Research on Degrowth. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018, 43, 291–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana, A.; Lorenzi, V.; Penasa, M.; Magni, E.; Alborali, G.L.; Bertocchi, L.; De Marchi, M. Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grandin, T. Improving Animal Welfare 2nd Edition: A Practical Approach; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Llonch, P.; Mainau, E.; Ipharraguerre, I.R.; Bargo, F.; Tedó, G.; Blanch, M.; Manteca, X. Chicken or the Egg: The Reciprocal Association between Feeding Behavior and Animal Welfare and Their Impact on Productivity in Dairy. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christensen, T.; Denver, S.; Sandøe, P. How Best to Improve Farm Animal Welfare? Four Main Approaches Viewed from an Economic Perspective. Anim. Welf. 2019, 28, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villettaz, R.M.; Rushen, J.; De Passillé, A.M.; Vasseur, E.; Orsel, K.; Pellerin, D. Associations between on-Farm Animal Welfare Indicators and Productivity and Profitability on Canadian Dairies: I. On Freestall Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 4341–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villettaz, R.M.; Rushen, J.; De Passillé, A.M.; Vasseur, E.; Haley, D.; Pellerin, D. Associations between on-Farm Cow Welfare Indicators and Productivity and Profitability on Canadian Dairies: II. On Tiestall Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2019, 102, 4352–4363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahr, J.; Moermond, C.; Montforts, M.; Derksen, A.; Bondt, N.; Puister-Jansen, L.; de Koeijer, T.; Hoekstra, P. Diergeneesmiddelen in Het Miliue: Een Synthese Van De Huidige Kennis; Stichting Toegepast Onderzoek Waterbeheer: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Puente-Rodríguez, D.; Bos, A.P.; Lahr, J.; Hoeksma, P. Antimicrobiële Resistentie En Residuen Van Diergeneesmiddelen (Antibiotica) in Een Circulaire Veehouderij; Tegengaan Van Verspreiding Via Mest En Milieu; Wageningen Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Vernooij, G.A.; Veldkamp, T.; Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J.; Hetterscheid, S.; Hendriks, W.H. Suitability of Side Flows as Ingredients for Poultry Feed: Wildcard Connected Circularity—Agrologistics of Side Flows: The Missing Link for Circularity by Design; Wageningen Food & Biobased Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- House, J. Insects as Food in The Netherlands: Production Networks and the Geographies of Edibility. Geoforum 2018, 94, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Letlhogonolo, S.; Hassan, Z.; Myuelo, T.G.; Mabelebele, M. Insects’ Production, Consumption, Policy, and Sustainability: What Have We Learned from the Indigenous Knowledge Systems? Insects 2021, 12, 432. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeij, I.; Bosma, A.I.J. Notitie Voor Helpdeskvraag Flowchart Dierlijke Bijproducten; Wageningen Livestock Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Vijn, M.; Dawson, A.; de Wolf, P.; van der Voort, M.; Vermeij, I. Mogelijkheden Verhogen Productie Diervoeders in Nederland; Verkenning Van De Mogelijkheden Tot Het Verhogen Van De Productie Van Diervoeders Uit Reststromen in Nederland Op Basis Van Beschikbare Kennis En Data; Stichting Wageningen Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention; Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, L.; Ellison, B.; Wilson, N.L. What Food Waste Solutions Do People Support? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 330, 129907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georganas, A.; Giamouri, E.; Pappas, A.C.; Papadomichelakis, G.; Galliou, F.; Manios, T.; Tsiplakou, E.; Fegeros, K.; Zervas, G. Bioactive Compounds in Food Waste: A Review on the Transformation of Food Waste to Animal Feed. Foods 2020, 9, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Zanten, H. Feed Sources for Livestock: Recycling Towards a Green Planet. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Dame-Korevaar, A.; Boumans, I.J.; Antonis, A.F.; van Klink, E.; de Olde, E.M. Microbial Health Hazards of Recycling Food Waste as Animal Feed. Futur. Foods 2021, 4, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokvis, L.; van Krimpen, M.; Kwakkel, R.; Bikker, P. Evaluation of the nutritional value of seaweed products for broiler chickens’ nutrition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 280, 115061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buschmann, A.H.; Camus, C.; Infante, J.; Neori, A.; Israel, Á.; Hernández-González, M.C.; Pereda, S.V.; Gomez-Pinchetti, J.L.; Golberg, A.; Tadmor-Shalev, N.; et al. Seaweed production: Overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity. Eur. J. Phycol. 2017, 52, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. The Global Status of Seaweed Production, Trade and Utilization. In FAO Globefish Research Programme; Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- van den Burg, S.; Dagevos, H.; Helmes, R. Sustainable Seaweed Value-Chains: Economics, Consumer Attitudes and Environmental Impacts; Wageningen Economic Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bikker, P.; Stokvis, L.; van Krimpen, M.; van Wikselaar, P.; Cone, J. Evaluation of Seaweeds from Marine Waters in Northwestern Europe for Application in Animal Nutrition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 263, 114460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, R.; Calderón, F.V.; López, J.S.; Azevedo, I.C.; Bruhn, A.; Fluch, S.; Tasende, M.G.; Ghaderiardakani, F.; Ilmjärv, T.; Laurans, M.; et al. Current Status of the Algae Production Industry in Europe: An Emerging Sector of the Blue Bioeconomy. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 7, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, P.; Xu, S.; Zhang, H.; Wen, S.; Dai, Y.; Lin, S.; Yarish, C. Bioremediation Efficiency in the Removal of Dissolved Inorganic Nutrients by the Red Seaweed, Porphyra Yezoensis, Cultivated in the Open Sea. Water Res. 2008, 42, 1281–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, I.; Macleod, A.; Sahlmann, C.; Neves, L.; Funderud, J.; Øverland, M.; Hughes, A.D.; Stanley, M. The Environmental Risks Associated with the Development of Seaweed Farming in Europe—Prioritizing Key Knowledge Gaps. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinley, R.D.; De Nys, R.; Vucko, M.J.; Machado, L.; Tomkins, N.W. The Red Macroalgae Asparagopsis Taxiformis Is a Potent Natural Antimethanogenic That Reduces Methane Production During In Vitro Fermentation with Rumen Fluid. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Norman, H.C.; Kinley, R.D.; Laurence, M.; Wilmot, M.; Bender, H.; de Nys, R.; Tomkins, N. Asparagopsis Taxiformis Decreases Enteric Methane Production from Sheep. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 58, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muizelaar, W.; Groot, M.; van Duinkerken, G.; Peters, R.; Dijkstra, J. ESafety and Transfer Study: Transfer of Bromoform Present in Asparagopsis taxiformis to Milk and Urine of Lactating Dairy Cows. Foods 2021, 10, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koesling, M.; Kvadsheim, N.P.; Halfdanarson, J.; Emblemsvåg, J.; Rebours, C. Environmental Impacts of Protein-Production from Farmed Seaweed: Comparison of Possible Scenarios in Norway. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slegers, P.M.; Helmes, R.J.K.; Draisma, M.; Broekema, R.; Vlottes, M.; van den Burg, S.W.K. Environmental Impact and Nutritional Value of Food Products Using the Seaweed Saccharina latissima. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319, 128689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dijk, M.; de Boer, J.A.; de Haan, M.H.A.; Mostert, P.; Oenema, J.; Verloop, J. Rekenregels Van De Kringloopwijzer 2020; Achtergronden Van Bex, Bea, Ben, Bep En Bec: Actualisatie Van De 2019-Versie; Wageningen Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Rajapakse, N.; Kim, S.K. Chapter 2—Nutritional and Digestive Health Benefits of Seaweed. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2011, 64, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Kim, K.S.; Pangestuti, R.; Rahmadi, P. Chapter 5—Sea Lettuces: Culinary Uses and Nutritional Value. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2011, 64, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Van den Burg, S.; Stuiver, F.; Veenstra, P.; Bikker, A.; López Contreras, A.; Palstra, J.; Broeze, H.; Jansen, R.; Jak, A.; Gerritsen, P.; et al. A Triple P Review of the Feasibility of Sustainable Offshore Seaweed Production in the North Sea; Wageningen University & Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Øverland, M.; Mydland, L.T.; Skrede, A. Marine macroalgae as sources of protein and bioactive compounds in feed for monogastric animals. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Makkar, H.P.S.; Tran, G.; Heuzé, V.; Giger-Reverdin, S.; Lessire, M.; Lebas, F.; Ankers, P. Seaweeds for livestock diets: A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 212, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vellinga, T.; van Laar, H.; Thomassen, M.; de Boer, H.C.; Berkhout, P.; Alking, H. Milieueffecten Van Diervoeders; Animal Sciences Group van Wageningen UR: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: On the Development of Plant Proteins in the European Union; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Farré, I.; Faci, J.M. Comparative Response of Maize (Zea Mays L.) and Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L. Moench) to Deficit Irrigation in a Mediterranean Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 83, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schittenhelm, S.; Schroetter, S. Comparison of Drought Tolerance of Maize, Sweet Sorghum and Sorghum-Sudangrass Hybrids. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2013, 200, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brus, D.J.; van den Akker, J.J.H. How serious a problem is subsoil compaction in The Netherlands? A survey based on probability sampling. Soil 2018, 4, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keller, T.; Sandin, M.; Colombi, T.; Horn, R.; Or, D. Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van den Akker, J.J.H.; Deru, J.G.C.; Sleiderink, J.W.M.; van Agtmaal, M.; Noij, I.G.A.M.; Heinen, M. Effecten Van Sorghum En Mais Op Bodem En Gewas Op Een Verdichte Zandgrond; Wageningen Environmental Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, M.N.V. Handbook of Ecological and Ecosystem Engineering; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Zaworska-Zakrzewska, A.; Kasprowicz-Potocka, M.; Twaruzek, M.; Kosicki, R.; Grajewski, J.; Wiśniewska, Z.; Rutkowski, A. A Comparison of the Composition and Contamination of Soybean Cultivated in Europe and Limitation of Raw Soy Seed Content in Weaned Pigs’ Diets. Animals 2020, 10, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altaf, R.; Altaf, S.; Hussain, M.; Shah, R.U.; Ullah, R.; Ullah, M.I.; Rauf, A.; Ansari, M.J.; Alharbi, S.A.; Alfarraj, S.; et al. Heavy Metal Accumulation by Roadside Vegetation and Implications for Pollution Control. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Messina, C.M.; Gaglio, R.; Morghese, M.; Tolone, M.; Arena, R.; Moschetti, G.; Santulli, A.; Francesca, N.; Settanni, L. Microbiological Profile and Bioactive Properties of Insect Powders Used in Food and Feed Formulations. Foods 2019, 8, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Huis, A. Prospects of Insects as Food and Feed. Org. Agric. 2021, 11, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Country | Total Compound Feed Production (×1000 Tonnes, 2015) | Company | Total Feed Volume, ind. Ingredients (×1000 Tonnes, 2015) |
---|---|---|---|
1 Germany | 23,345 | ForFarmers (NL) | 9100 |
2 Spain | 22,273 | Agrifirm Group (NL) | 7056 |
3 France | 21,092 | De Heus (NL) | 5950 |
4 UK | 15,449 | Nutreco (NL) | 5900 |
5 The Netherlands | 14,283 | DLG Group (DK) | 4140 |
6 Italy | 13,665 | Agravis Raiffeisen (DE) | 4060 |
7 Poland | 9308 | Avril Group (FR) | 3400 |
8 Belgium | 6650 | Veronesi (IT) | 3150 |
9 Denmark | 4190 | DTC (DE) | 2800 |
10 Ireland | 3966 | Neovia (FR) | 2650 |
Abbreviation | Name | English Name | Members | Nr |
---|---|---|---|---|
SecureFeed | SecureFeed | SecureFeed | Organizations buying and trading feedstuffs | 385 |
FND | Federatie Nederlandse Diervoeder keten | Federation of the Dutch Animal Feed Chain | Associations in the Animal feed chain | 8 |
Nevedi | Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie | Dutch Association for Animal Feed Industry | Producers or traders of feed to farmers. | 92 |
Het Comité | Koninklijke Vereniging Het Comité van Graanhandelaren | Royal Association, The Committee of Grain Traders | Companies active in the agri-business | 130 |
OPNV | Overleggroep Producten Natte Veevoeders | Discussion Group Producers of Wet Animal Feeds | Producers of wet animal feeds (as food co-product) | 15 |
Hisfa | Handelaren in Stro, Fourages en aanverwante Producten | Traders in Straw, Forages and related products | Traders in Straw, Forages and related products | 100 |
MVO | Maatschappij voor vetten en oliën | The Netherlands Oils and Fats Industry | Organizations active in production, processing or trade of plant and animal fats | ~70 |
VDDN | Vereniging Diervoederspecialiteiten en Diergezondheidsproducten Nederland | Trade Association for Manufacturers, Importers and Suppliers of Animal Feed Specialties in The Netherlands | See name | ~75 |
NVG | Nederlandse Voedingsindustrie Gezelschapsdieren | Dutch Feed Industry for Companion Animals | See name | ~22 |
VDN | Vereniging Diervoederonderzoek Nederland | Association for Animal Nutrition Research, The Netherlands | Compound feed industry | ~5 |
Segment | Number of Companies | Feed Purchased (in 100 Tons 88% DM Basis) | % of Total |
---|---|---|---|
Forage traders | 114 | 645 | 3.0 |
Special feed traders | 51 | 90 | 0.4 |
Compound feed and raw material traders | 112 | 1815 | 8.4 |
Compound feed producers | 62 | 17,507 | 81.2 |
Special feed producers | 10 | 90 | 0.4 |
Feed producers | 15 | 146 | 0.7 |
Moist co-products traders | 21 | 1264 | 5.9 |
Total | 385 | 21,556 | 100 |
Forage % | Compound Feed % | Wet Co-Products % | Single Ingredients % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cows | 74 | 20 | 4 | 2 |
Pigs | 0 | 73 | 18 | 9 |
Chicken | 0 | 77 | 0 | 23 |
Restaurant and apartment complex areas | Food waste was dried in a drum type dryer at 115 ± 2 °C crude protein (CP) (25%), salt content (3.28%), ether extract (EE) (17.3%) The majority of the essential amino acids, such as methionine and lysine, were considerably lower in quantity than that of a corn and soybean mix (60%:40% ratio). |
Commercial and residential locations | Food waste contained CP (27.6%), ash (14.56%), calcium (1.09–1.25%), phosphorus (0.16–0.30%), K (0.56–0.76%), Mg (0.1–0.2%), EE (9.12%), oleic acid (30.63% of EE), linoleic acid (25.5% of EE), and linolenic acid (3.03% of EE) and had polyunsaturated fatty acid/saturated fatty acid ratio (0.78), n-6/n-3 fatty acid ratio (7.94). |
g/kg | g/kg DM | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Seaweed Classification | Species | DM | Ash | OM a | CP b | Cfat | Cfibre | Sugar | Starch | NSP c | NDF | ADF | ADL | HCI–ash |
Brown | I. digitata (S) | 891 | 275 | 725 | 92 | 16 | 73 | 2 | 2 | 618 | 120 | 200 | 36 | 7 |
I. digitata (I) | 923 | 367 | 633 | 82 | 11 | 69 | 1 | 1 | 545 | 91 | 164 | 28 | 7 | |
S. latissima (S) | 874 | 243 | 757 | 74 | 10 | 71 | 6 | 1 | 668 | 122 | 185 | 23 | 11 | |
S. latissima (F) | 902 | 273 | 727 | 117 | 12 | 62 | 1 | 1 | 603 | 96 | 171 | 7 | 6 | |
A. nodossum (S) | 883 | 214 | 786 | 45 | 38 | 54 | 30 | 1 | 679 | 162 | 331 | 180 | 3 | |
A. nodosum (I) | 910 | 411 | 589 | 57 | 10 | 88 | 1 | 1 | 530 | 152 | 298 | 48 | 11 | |
Red | P. palmata (S) | 939 | 209 | 791 | 141 | 12 | 35 | 35 | 17 | 594 | 312 | 50 | 6 | 7 |
P. palmata (F) | 949 | 228 | 772 | 134 | 13 | 28 | 48 | 22 | 555 | 347 | 42 | 5 | 4 | |
G. crispus (S) | 883 | 176 | 824 | 98 | 17 | 31 | 6 | 26 | 691 | 392 | 40 | 9 | 2 | |
G. crispus (I) | 899 | 445 | 555 | 125 | 7 | 45 | 3 | 90 | 351 | 190 | 53 | 14 | 152 | |
Green | U. lactuca (S) | 842 | 243 | 757 | 70 | 23 | 76 | 24 | 75 | 567 | 385 | 141 | 70 | 20 |
U. lactuca (F) | 880 | 260 | 740 | 168 | 35 | 76 | 12 | 73 | 457 | 329 | 143 | 69 | 8 | |
U. lactuca (I) | 883 | 173 | 827 | 248 | 21 | 57 | 7 | 42 | 530 | 259 | 135 | 69 | 11 | |
Soybean meald | 900 | 73 | 927 | 531 | 28 | ND | 134 | 10 | 224 | 90.6 | 51.4 | UD f | ND | |
Sugar beet pulpe | 917 | 79 | 921 | 88 | 14 | ND | 234 | 4 | 581 | 356 | 182 | 8 | ND | |
Alfalfae | 927 | 125 | 875 | 174 | 27 | ND | 54 | 19 | 601 | 419 | 318 | 77 | ND |
Alfalfa (ha) | Field Beans (ha) | Field Peas (ha) | Soya (ha) | Sweet Lupins (ha) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 6422.43 | 346.47 | 493.19 | 0.05 | 48.49 |
2011 | 6388.48 | 305.78 | 157.44 | 6.66 | 30.13 |
2012 | 5908.43 | 331.54 | 141.33 | 11.18 | 63.44 |
2013 | 5484.63 | 228.29 | 230.97 | 33.30 | 66.92 |
2014 | 5256.53 | 279.58 | 189.41 | 110.15 | 101.60 |
2015 | 7782.07 | 360.43 | 272.94 | 193.54 | 78.20 |
2016 | 8356.15 | 427.08 | 201.00 | 140.29 | 35.18 |
2017 | 7494.67 | 572.94 | 263.06 | 446.87 | 50.87 |
2018 | 7559.31 | 704.90 | 257.24 | 540.84 | 56.05 |
2019 | 7619.53 | 949.34 | 312.74 | 475.62 | 57.58 |
2020 * | 7510.73 | 1091.78 | 276.99 | 132.38 | 100.22 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Puente-Rodríguez, D.; van Laar, H.; Veraart, M. A Circularity Evaluation of New Feed Categories in The Netherlands—Squaring the Circle: A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042352
Puente-Rodríguez D, van Laar H, Veraart M. A Circularity Evaluation of New Feed Categories in The Netherlands—Squaring the Circle: A Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042352
Chicago/Turabian StylePuente-Rodríguez, Daniel, Harmen van Laar, and Maayke Veraart. 2022. "A Circularity Evaluation of New Feed Categories in The Netherlands—Squaring the Circle: A Review" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042352