Dealing with Belgium livestock emissions by 2030
This is the first in a series of articles I have decided to write, in relation to my work in the Belgium livestock market. Over the last year, I have been active with farmers and other stakeholders, explaining the business benefits of certified air scrubbing and energy recovery. I therefore want to take the opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas as to how we should address the challenges we face and turn them into an opportunity for all.
This month I cover the key aspects and how I believe we should move forward. Enjoy, there will be more to come.
Three questions
In Belgium, as in most countries in Europe many questions are being asked regards the Nitrogen discussion and how to approach it. In conclusion, it ultimately comes down to three fundamental questions:
- Do we want locally produced meat?
- Do we want it to be sustainable?
- Who is going to pay for it?
In the next eight years, the Belgium livestock industry has to deal with its emission targets by 2030. This will bring many challenges. The pig sector needs to reduce its footprint by 30% and the ones that stay, will need to deal with their emissions. By either addressing the problem at source or dealing with it end of pipe. Also every pig and poultry farmer is expected to reduce ammonia on an average by 60% across the year. This will affect around 2800 pig and 800 poultry buildings and equates to upgrading on average 450 farms every year for the next 8 years.
How will we deal with this?
We must find a practical way for our farmers to reach these goals in the best possible way. The first step would be to look at the current process (source of emissions) to see where we can improve. Then look at how we deal with the remaining pollution at the end of the process. The traditional approach is to put a big washing factory on the end of the building to over compensate. This is fine and certainly safe. However, what we have learned this does not always work in practice. Especially if we want to address the bigger problem of reaching national emission targets. Dumping the problem on the few, does not deliver the net effect required. We estimate that if we continue down ‘the big factory’ road, we will achieve less than 10% of the targets set. Saying that, we do have protocols from which these are calculated, and are defined in the BAT (Best available techniques). This document when published leant very much on the traditional thinking and the reason why it guides the reader to this approach.
So what is the alternative?
Partial airscubber – if the lawmakers would consider partial air scrubbing, we could end up with a far more attractive approach for all, as it significantly reduces the Air- Scrubbers’ size and makes it much more payable. An average emission target of 70% over the year vs. 70% every minute of the year would bring the size of the airscubber down by at least 50%. This means compact airscubber boxes with fewer operation costs, a better carbon footprint, and more realistic investment numbers.
Why install air scrubbers for maximum air capacity where we only use most of it for a fraction of the year? It does not benefit anybody. By reducing the size and therefore the costs, there could be greater acceptance. By looking at other value adds and pay back mechanisms we could turn this into an interesting business model, that would accelerate ‘take up’’ and allow us to hit those national targets quicker.
Subsidy
The good thing is that there will be subsidy available in Belgium, for those who have to invest in air-scrubbers and associated technologies. We hear of up to 40% support for young farmers and 30% for the older generation. This level of support will be calculated over the total investment relating to the installation of an airscubber, including building costs.
Energy Recovery
Another way of turning your costs into a return is energy recovery. Concepts such as our Triple EEE system, allow us to use animal energy gathered in the air scrubber wash water, to pre-heat incoming air in the winter. By using the airscubber as an energy source, we can realise a return on investment of under 5 years. We also hear that the subsidies will cover systems like this.
Green labelling
Finally and to address the third question of who pays? Food that is produced in an environmentally friendly way should come at a premium. If society wants locally produced, sustainable meat, then it should pay for it. But to achieve this the industries ‘gate keepers’ namely the food retailers need to buy in. If they do then the nitrogen problem can be fixed effectively.
In the UK, some companies are starting to pay a premium price of up to 5 euro cents a bird for chickens grown in buildings with air scrubbers. With this premium, a farmer can earn his investment back within 5 years.
Belgium supermarkets: it is down to you
So why can’t we do it here? If we put 5-euro cents on the price of a chicken, this would easily pay for air scrubbing in Belgium and not hit the consumer’s pocket. The positive effect for the industry would be massive.
Don’t make the same mistakes we did in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands we see farmers protesting, traffic jams with 1500 tractors, and visits to politicians houses. In a country, many regard as being the most knowledgeable and advanced in agriculture. Clearly something went wrong. Is it possible to learn from the mistakes we made here to avoid it happening across the border. Let us hope so.
If the government comes with a practical solution to this significant problem, which we believe it will. Then the Belgium livestock could become the role model and top of the environmental class.
If all farmers can invest in such a sustainable business model as described above, then they not only lead the world but also make a healthy profit in the process.
Certification is critical
To do this correctly and not saddle the farmer with unnecessary problems, certification is critical! We can also learn from the Netherlands what happens if anyone is allowed to build and install air scrubbers. We commonly refer to the period between 2012 and 2016 as the ‘wild west show’, when the rules were relaxed and the cowboys came to town.
Failed air-scrubbing means farmers will have either to reinvest or be closed down. As a result, everyone suffers as these failures also impact the industries reputation. A solid protocol and certification model reduces the risk of failure and provides a level of guarantee for the future. This is specifically important if partial air scrubbing is adopted, as the risk of exposure can be greater.
Conclusion
If air scrubbing is one of the answers to Belgium’s Nitrogen problem and can be turned into a business model through sizing, subsidy, use of energy recovery and green labelling. Then the future looks bright for farmers. They can start earning money instead of spending it and accelerate their commitment to sustainable farming at the same time. It’s a win-win.
We have the answers in our hands. If we learn from mistakes made in the past, adopt ideas from others, and act together. Then the chance of reaching 2030 with clean noses is extremely high.
For more information about our systems:
For more interesting stories:
Optimize your business
If you would like to schedule an appointment to see what is possible to optimize your business. Please contact:
Pieter Hanssen
Phone number: +31 6 10 49 96 79
Email: Pieter Hanssen phanssen@inno-plussystems.com
Or complete the form below…
