Page 1

Sustainability Report October 2012


365 days of the year, the ritual of the new day starts with the flickering light of the open fridge door.


A mug of breakfast tea, a lunchtime sandwich and yoghurt, a mid afternoon coffee, topping a dinner time favourite, finally sending us off to bed ready to start again tomorrow. We provide the comfort, pleasure and nutrition required to wake up a country and fuel future champions. We make it look easy.


And it might be easy to stop there. But this is a rare opportunity to recognise just how important our industry is. We’re part of the fabric of Britain. Agriculture has shaped land, town and city; our continuing stewardship has ensured that for generations our landscape is an internationally celebrated part of our national identity. Without this industry; the people and livestock; the green patchwork quilt of our countryside would look very different.


We’re good at what we do. All along our supply chain from cow, calf, farmers and family to our customers and consumers. The following pages share how First Milk are preparing for some of the long and short term challenges facing our industry. We are all stakeholders.


First Things First 10

The dairy industry

16

First Milk

22

Developing a Sustainability Programme

The First Milk Sustainability Programme 30 Our 2020 Commitments 32 Feed for the Future 40 Cow and Calf 48 Wheels, Yields and Deals 56 Reduce, Renew, Recycle 64 Food for the Future

72 Certification, Trie SM 74 Kate Allum, First Milk

CEO

Appendices 76 Science Review 83 Programme Measures


The dairy industry has more than 14,000 farmers in the UK and it is estimated that there are around 50,000 farmers and farm workers employed on dairy farms alone. We milk 1.81 million dairy cows every day of the year. Our farmers work 365 days a year to make sure this happens. As a nation we each eat around 6.1kg of cheese and consume over 78 litres of milk a year. Nationally that’s enough to invite 7 billion people (everybody in the world) over for a cup of tea — 45 times.

10

11


1960

2002

2011

Back in 1960 there were 151,625 registered milk producers, the average size of herd was 20, with each cow producing 3,380 litres of milk a year.

By 2002 there were 25,548 (one sixth of 1960 level) registered milk producers, roughly doubling the milk produced per cow to 6,467 litres.

In 2011 there were 14,793 producers (one tenth of 1960 level), with an average herd size of 123, each dairy cow producing 7,533 litres per year.

Changing market demands aren’t just about producing more — it’s increased consistency, quality and diversity of product.

We recognise we must evaluate and improve the way we utilise every part of the system that brings dairy to the kitchen table.

How we best reward our farmers for sustainable practices?

From everyday items such as cheese to sports nutrition bars and protein drinks.

Our weather and economy continue to present us with challenges and for our farmers and supply line there are further questions posed.

Over the last half a century, in the UK we’ve seen demand on all parts of our industry increase, often most visible at the first production stage of what we do — the dairy farm.

In many ways a success story, stakeholder commitment, increased yield and better quality from innovation has helped us continue to respond.

What impact animal feed imports have on the environment and our ability to manage costs? How we best protect our livestock from disease and injury?

12

13

What kind of energy we use to power our farms and factories? How we best utilise all the different elements of milk?


We are problem solvers. The industry is adaptable, innovative and forward thinking. Dairy farming has always reacted to — and ultimately embraced change. Our products are defined by our environment and good practice. We have pride not only in our product ­— but in our land, livestock and family, on whose goodwill we rely.

14

15


From the Ayrshire coast in Scotland to the southwest tip of Wales via the Mull of Kintyre, Cumbria and the Peak District, First Milk farms shape our landscape across the UK. First Milk is a co-operative, we are owned by 2000 British dairy farmers. Everything we do is geared towards securing our farmers’ future and it is they who profit from our success.

16

17


You’ve probably come across First Milk with some of our branded products: The Lake District, Mull of Kintyre, Pembrokeshire and Isle of Arran cheeses. Around 1 in 4 packs of cheddar you see in UK supermarkets are produced by us.

We are also a large supplier of milk to liquid processors, as well as being major manufacturers of soft cheese and skimmed milk powder.

As a company we may have an immediate requirement for milk but as an industry we are faced with the opportunity to have far greater impact.

More recently our sports nutrition products made by CNP Professional helped Team Sky and Team GB cycling teams achieve welldocumented success.

With this in mind we recognised the opportunity to work with a partner to help deliver a First Milk vision of a sustainability programme.

The commitment we have to our farmers, their livestock, our partners and customers is that we meet the challenges presented with a clear focus on sustainability. 18

19


Oxford based organisation, Food Animal Initiative (FAI) are leaders in their field and they are also farmers — their understanding of the issues right along the supply chain, is key in our partnership decision. FAI’s deployment of a strategic design process, Trie SM, presents a pragmatic approach to the application and communication of sustainability. Put simply, a journey towards sustainability designed by Economics, Ethics & Environment. Sustainability not just by one but by all. Importantly we recognise the need for change is universal. As a farmerowned co-operative, we are best placed to influence industry and individual. Our good practice actioned and communicated is infectious; it generates support in action and understanding.

20

21


FAI apply the Trie SM design process, acknowledging that sustainability isn’t something that we finish rather something we continue to do.

Development

The diagram (opposite) illustrates how First Milk is working in partnership with FAI to develop, implement, measure and review a bespoke sustainability programme.

Programme Commitment

Measure & Review

In ‘scope’ we identify the issues affecting our industry, with particular focus on issues most relevant to our business. Using the Trie SM 3Es (Economics, Ethics & Environment) framework we are able to identify which of the issues provide a measurable impact that most benefit our business.

Scope

fig.1 Trie SM Design Process

22

23


Farmers / Shareholders

Government / NGOs / Scientists

The identified issues surrounding First Milk are put into context alongside a stakeholder analysis.

Consumers

Understanding how our internal and external stakeholders prioritise the issues helps us align evidence and support, forming the structure for the First Milk programme. Company

Stakeholder expectations and aspirations also help us identify what might need to be considered in the future development of the programme.

Customers

Rest of industry

Although the stakeholder analysis provides a range of feedback, it does help put focus on the dominant issues. For example alongside economic sustainability, cow and calf welfare were specifically important to both internal and external stakeholders.

fig.2 Stakeholder Analysis

24

25


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

We validated our developing programme by cross referencing our business and stakeholder analysis against a science review. The science review also helped inform the actions required to implement the programme. This scoping and development process completes the design of the First Milk Sustainability Programme. It also defines the measures required to further review and develop. We are also involved with a number of pan-industry initiatives, including the Dairy Roadmap and Dairy 2020. The work we are doing on our own Sustainability Programme sits alongside these UK dairy industry initiatives.

The following pages outline each of the programme areas that we are focusing on. Listing objectives, what we are doing and what has already been done.

Ethics

Accompanying each programme is a Trie SM Sustainability Barcode (right). This helps communicate and categorise each of the issues that are tackled by the programme area.

Cow health and welfare

Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety

Environment Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use Economics Herd performance Profitability Capital reinvestment Energy efficiency Labour cost

26

27


Our Programme

Each of our 5 programme areas are led by a member of our Operations Board or a senior manager in the business. We deliberately chose not to have a Sustainability Team to lead this work, but rather we spread responsibility and accountability to ensure that it’s an integral part of everyone’s day job.

Feed for the Future Sustainable rations

Cow and Calf Long lived healthiest cows producing viable calves

Wheels, Yields and Deals Efficient logistics and rewarding farmers for sustainable practices

Reduce, Renew, Recycle Moving to all renewable energy

Food for the Future Zero waste dairy company

28

29


Our Commitment

Against each programme area we have set long-term goals to define the sustainable business we want to be by 2020. Sitting here in 2012, each of these goals is very challenging. However, we are committed to working with our farmers, employees and external partners to measure progress year-on-year and ultimately achieve these targets.

Majority of our milk to come from forage and other locally grown energy sources

We have long lived cows that are the healthiest in the industry

All our farmers are rewarded for sustainability activities

All the energy that our sites use comes from renewable sources All the packaging materials we use are recyclable or compostable We are a zero process waste company

30

31


Feed for the Future Sustainable rations

Our climate and topography With strong cross-sector in the UK is one of the competition for purchased best areas in the world in feedstuffs, prices are rising which to build a model of fast. Feed for the Future is sustainable dairy farming. about optimising the use However, several decades of forage and locally grown of focus on producing more energy sources to create a milk per cow has seen a more resilient dairy industry. reduction in the use of * From Promar Milkminder forage in the UK in favour annual rolling results of purchased feedstuffs. Rolling annual production data shows that the average yield from forage is 31%* and the yield from grazing is just 17%. 32

33


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

Objectives Feed for the Future Sustainable rations

Ethics Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety Cow health and welfare

1. Target more milk from forage and from other sustainably grown protein and energy feed sources

2. Improve feed conversion efficiency from sustainable feed sources

3. Improve waste management and efficient use of on farm nutrients

Environment Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use Economics Herd performance Profitability Capital reinvestment

was piling cake into them… with feed prices at “ I£250/tonne. It was unbelievable really” Jimmy Pritt, Cumbria 34

Energy efficiency Labour cost 35


In Action Feed for the Future Sustainable rations

What we’re doing Establishing on-farm sustainability working groups in 3 areas — sustainable rations; forage management; nutrient management.

What we’ve done We have a new partnership with the Environment Agency in Wales to develop better nutrient management practices to help protect local watercourses.

We are working with 90 farmers on Feed for the Future projects.

These projects will be delivered by expert partners providing consultancy to producers to enhance sustainability and achieve more milk from forage.

40 of them in Cumbria and around the Mull of Kintyre will be focusing on sustainable rations and grassland management which builds on a successful pilot project we undertook in the last year with Evolution Farming.

36

37

50 farmers in West Wales will be involved in the nutrients, soils and water project in conjunction with the Environment Agency.


If it wasn’t for these guys (Evolution Farming), we wouldn’t be doing this. We would probably still be milking 90 cows thinking we didn’t have any grass …having these guys come here has really made a difference. We’ve cut down on our cake use from last year. I think in June we used around 7 tonnes of cake, compare that to the previous year when it was about 30 tonnes

Jimmy Pritt, Cumbria

38

39


Cow and Calf Long-lived healthiest cows producing viable calves

The cow and her calf are the foundation of our dairy industry. Their health and welfare has always been a focus for farmers and their customers, and is vital for a profitable business. Despite extensive research in veterinary medicine there are still a number of major challenges facing the industry. These include infectious diseases, fertility, mastitis and lameness which all threaten the welfare of the cow and 40

41

present a significant cost for the farmer. The Cow and Calf programme addresses the fundamentals of cow and calf welfare — ­ what keeps them healthy and provides them with what they want. The programme implements solutions through on-farm working groups and most importantly, supports farmers to share this knowhow with each other.


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

Objectives Cow and Calf Long-lived healthiest cows producing viable calves

Ethics Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety Cow health and welfare

1. Drive lifetime productivity by identifying and promoting excellence in fertility and nutrition

2. Drive lifetime productivity and a reduction in antibiotic use by identifying and promoting excellence in prevention of lameness, mastitis and infectious diseases

3. Deliver a comprehensive solution for dairy bull calves

Environment Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use Economics Herd performance Profitability Capital reinvestment

don’t treat your cattle right — “Iftheyyouaren’t going to produce for you” David Walker, Cumbria 42

Energy efficiency Labour cost 43


In Action Cow and Calf Long-lived healthiest cows producing viable calves

What we’ve done

What we’re doing In 2012 we commenced a new partnership with the Veterinary School at Edinburgh University to provide our farmers with industry leading veterinary advice and support. These senior vets will work with 3 groups of our farmers. Each group will target the reduction and prevention of a health issue commonly found on dairy farms. A group in Scotland will establish a young-stock management strategy 44

and determine the major causes of poor fertility in dairy cows; a group in the North Midlands will utilise the university’s world class disease surveillance laboratory to identify and target disease prevention; whilst a group in the South Midlands will develop and implement a mastitis control strategy. We are expanding our calf scheme to give more farmers access to a viable market for their dairy bull calves.

30 farmers have signed up to on-farm project groups on preventing and reducing mastitis, infertility and infectious diseases and improving youngstock management. Since 2010 we have run our own calf scheme in partnership with ScotBeef which has meant that over 4500 calves have been reared for the beef supply chain.

45

Since 2007 we have worked with the Kingshay Farming Trust and Royal Agricultural College to deliver 6 academically accredited programmes to over 700 farmer members. The accredited programmes have covered herd health, nutrition, environmental practice and business management.


We’ve kept British Friesians because we use every bit of the animal that’s valuable to us, we’ve got a good frame of carcase, we’ve got a good calf off it whether heifer calf or bull calf and they’re a little bit cheaper to feed

Anne Faulkner, Derbyshire

46

47


Wheels, Yields and Deals Efficient logistics and rewarding farmers for sustainable practices

With 2000 farmers across the UK, we have the daily challenge of collecting and transporting milk, manufacturing dairy products and then distributing these finished products to maturation storage or directly to customers. Wheels, Yields and Deals addresses the interface between farm and factory and focuses on ensuring that our milk price schedules incentivise 48

49

sustainable farming and that our transport movements are as efficient as possible. The milk price contracts we have and how we choose to prioritise rewards, drives farmer decisions on areas as broad as calving patterns, production systems, cow type and feed sources. So we must ensure that we set out a route that is sustainable for farmers and for the business in the long-term.


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

Objectives Wheels, Yields and Deals Efficient logistics and rewarding farmers for sustainable practices

Ethics Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety Cow health and welfare

1. Ensure milk price schedules are compatible with and incentivise sustainable production systems

Environment

2. Improve logistics efficiency of all transport movements

Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use Economics Herd performance Profitability Capital reinvestment

drive outcomes — good contracts drive “ Contracts good outcomes” Ruth Layton MRCVS 50

Energy efficiency Labour cost 51


In Action Wheels, Yields and Deals Efficient logistics and rewarding farmers for sustainable practices

Introducing the UK’s first milk solids payment schedule which pays farmers on the weight of butterfat and protein. This new and innovative approach to milk payments is compatible with a more forage based farming system and enables farmers to choose to feed 52

What we’ve done

What we’re doing Developing a logistics network which constantly drives more efficiencies — this includes purchasing new, lighter vehicles and locating depots to reduce miles travelled.

We went from a negative of about 0.6 ppl for seasonality and now we’re running at 1.2ppl + so we’ve virtually got 2ppl by altering our milk system… any other company you couldn’t do that with Richard Harrison, Derbyshire

and breed their cows for milk quality rather than for ever increasing volumes. The new schedule was developed in conjunction with a group of Cumbrian dairy farmers who supply The Lake District Creamery. Reviewing all milk contracts to ensure that they continue to provide the correct incentives.

40% of our secondary haulage fleet has been replaced with lightweight trailers for delivering milk to customers that are further afield. These trailers can carry 2% extra volume. 95% of our primary milk collection fleet is fitted with telematics which enables depots to better plan collection routes. Since 2010 a group of just over 60 of our farmers in South West Scotland have been rewarded for sustainable 53

practices via a milk pricing schedule developed with Nestlé. These farmers have received milk price incentives for: undertaking greenhouse gas audits on their farms; attending accredited workshops; implementing the subsequent action plans and benchmarking herd health and productivity indicators.


Our milk solids go into producing cheese, that’s why we stick to the type of cow we have… they produce a better quality milk - higher butterfat, higher protein. As long as you keep your hygiene and your welfare standards right, that cow will produce quality milk and we get a higher price

David Walker, Cumbria

54

55


Reduce, Renew, Recycle Moving to all renewable energy

Greenhouse gas emissions and waste management were identified as key issues for the dairy sector by our internal and external stakeholder questionnaires and our science review. Reduce Renew Recycle supports our drive towards renewable energy, zero waste and recovered water use throughout the supply chain. By helping farmers to understand their carbon footprint, and partnering with them on renewable 56

57

energy projects we can bring benefits to both the farm and factory. Investing in more energy efficient technology and switching fuel sources will help reduce greenhouse gas emission while lowering costs at processing sites.


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

Objectives Reduce, Renew, Recycle Moving to all renewable energy

Ethics Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety Cow health and welfare

1. Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency

2. Target zero process and packaging waste to landfill

3. Reduce water use on farm and improve efficiency of water use at factory

Environment Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use Economics Herd performance Profitability

is said to be the biggest user of “ Agriculture water, accounting for almost 70% of water withdrawals� FAO 2007 58

Capital reinvestment Energy efficiency Labour cost 59


In Action Reduce, Renew, Recycle Moving to all renewable energy

What we’ve done

What we’re doing By Easter 2013, 48% of our cheddar cheese will be made at a site where we are replacing a steam plant that was powered by Heavy Fuel Oil to one with Gas and a Combined Heat and Power Unit. Segregating waste at our processing and packing sites so that more waste can be recycled. First Milk Energy is working with a number of our farmers in West Wales to install wind turbines on their land to supply our 60

cheese factories with a renewable source of energy. We have worked with the farmers to submit planning applications and plan to roll this programme out further during 2013.

New fuel burners installed at our Haverfordwest creamery have reduced fuel consumption by 6%.

landfill at our cheese packing plant and we are now targeting this at our other manufacturing sites.

93% of our cheddar cheese is produced from plants where:

We are working in partnership with Nestlé to build a sustainable dairy supply chain for their Girvan factory in Ayrshire. Over 60 First Milk farmers who supply the site have reduced their total greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.7%, equating to 5,517 tonnes of carbon saved, and reduced total non-livestock water usage by 5.1%.

• We have installed water recovery equipment to reduce our reliance on mains water. • We have improved waste segregation and 99% of our waste is recycled. We have now implemented zero process waste to 61


The burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change, a threat to biodiversity and is increasingly expensive. Moving to renewable fuel sources not only reduces First Milk’s environmental impact but saves on processing costs

Dr. Ashleigh Bright, FAI

62

63


Food for the Future Zero waste dairy company

The focus for the Food for the Future programme is added value products that maximise the utilisation of all the components of milk and the development of products and packaging that promote sustainable consumption. Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has estimated that UK householders waste 30% of the food they buy and of this approximately 60% is edible. 64

65

From the utilisation of whey in sports nutrition products, through the maximisation of factory yield by packaging grated cheese, to sustaining cheese quality in the home with zip-lock packaging, we employ a process of continuous improvement to reduce the waste of our valuable products.


Trie SM Sustainability Barcode

Objectives Food for the Future Zero waste dairy company

Ethics Worker welfare Calf health and welfare Food safety Cow health and welfare

1. Develop new products and packaging that are affordable, valued and sustainable

2. Utilise different elements of milk to enhance economic sustainability and reduce waste

3. Reduce waste at consumer level without causing increases through the rest of the supply chain

Environment Greenhouse gas emissions Soil quality Waste Biodiversity Land use Water use

“

Economics

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with avoidable food and drink waste is the equivalent of approximately 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. This is roughly 2.4% of greenhouse gas emissions associated with all consumption in the UK Chapagain & James, 2011

Herd performance Profitability Capital reinvestment

�

66

Energy efficiency Labour cost 67


In Action Food for the Future Zero waste dairy company

What we’ve done

What we’re doing Investing in new added value food products to maximise use of each element of milk. Developing recipe and packaging that supports sustainable consumption by extending shelf life. Working with our retail, foodservice, businessto-business and export customers to tailor solutions to meet their specific channel needs.

68

Through our sports nutritional company CNP Professional we are using whey protein from milk in a number of products to meet the needs of mainstream and dedicated sports nutrition users.

Since 2009 we have employed 5 students on a dairy technology apprenticeship which involves college tuition and hands-on experience at our manufacturing sites. This pipeline of dairy technologists will assist us with the delivery of the Food for the Future objectives. We set up a strategic joint venture on whey proteins with New Zealand based dairy company Fonterra in September 2011. The joint venture sees us produce added value whey at our 69

Lake District Creamery to meet the nutritional demands of Fonterra’s customers in Europe. Our partnership with ASDA ensured that they were the first major retailer to move their retailer brand cheese into zip lock packs — now recognised as an industry standard.


I think going forward we’ve got to look at more added value products even if it means putting it into niche markets… because that’s where the money is and then we’ve got to get it around the world, we can’t just look at the UK

Anne Faulkner, Derbyshire

Left CNP Professional sponsored Jason Baird 9 x World Karate Champion

70

71


Trie SM Certified To tackle the sustainability of the businesses and organisations that we work with, Trie SM applies a design process that ensures no important issue is missed, that published science is fully taken into account and that all stakeholder groups are consulted. Trie SM then requires measures to be put in place to accurately assess the progress of programme actions against a set of long term commitments. Companies are awarded Trie SM Certification when they implement a full programme on an on-going basis. FAI is pleased that the working partnership with First Milk has achieved this status and that the process of building sustainability into the whole organisation is well underway. Roland Bonney, Director, FAI

72

73


systems. It makes sense that we control and reduce waste, water and energy. And it makes sense that we produce products and packaging that support sustainable consumption.

I regularly get asked why we are concentrating on sustainability when many companies are taking a step back due to the current economic situation. My response is that we’re focusing on sustainability because it is an intrinsic part of a healthy business. It makes sense for our farmers to look at ways to reduce their feed bills and that we investigate and share ways to improve cow and calf health. It makes sense that we ensure our milk price schedules incentivise sustainable production 74

75

These are the right things to do from an ethical and environmental standpoint, but most importantly they deliver an economic benefit to our farmers, either directly on-farm or through maximising the returns we can pass back to them. The work we have done on sustainability, the activities we are doing and the aspirations we have shared in this report set us on a clear route. We are taking a different path from other companies in the UK dairy industry and what we do on sustainability is a key part of this. Kate Allum, First Milk CEO


Appendix A Science Review Biodiversity BENGTSSON, J., AHNSTROM, J. and WEIBULL, A., 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, pp. 261269. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal, Quebec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity. CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, 2000. Sustaining life on earth: how the convention on biological diversity promotes nature and human well-being. UK: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. DEFRA, 2011. UK biodiversity indicators in your pocket 2011. UK: Defra. DEL PRADO, A., MISSELBROOK, T., CHADWICK, D., HOPKINS, A., DEWHURST, R.J., DAVISON, P., BUTLER, A., SCHRODER, J. and SCHOLEFIELD, D., 2011. SIMS(DAIRY): A modelling framework to identify sustainable dairy farms in the UK. Framework description and test for organic systems and N fertiliser optimisation. Science of the Total Environment, 409(19), pp. 3993-4009. DEL PRADO, A. and SCHOLEFIELD, D., 2008. Use of SIMS(DAIRY) modelling framework system to compare the scope on the sustainability of a dairy farm of animal and plant geneticbased improvements with

76

management-based changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, 146, pp. 195-211. GEIGER, F., VAN DER LUBBE, S.C.T.M., BRUNSTING, A.M.H. and DE SNOO, G.R., 2010. Insect abundance in cow dung pats of different farming systems. Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam), 70(4), pp. 106-110. MCMAHON, B.J., HELDEN, A., ANDERSON, A., SHERIDAN, H., KINSELLA, A. and PURVIS, G., 2010. Interactions between livestock systems and biodiversity in South-East Ireland. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 139(1-2), pp. 232-238. PETIT, S., FIRBANK, R., WYATT, B. and HOWARD, D., 2001. MIRABEL: Models for integrated review and assessment of biodiversity in European landscapes. Ambio, 30(2), pp. 81-88. POWER, E.F. and STOUT, J.C., 2011. Organic dairy farming: impacts on insect-flower interaction networks and pollination. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), pp. 561-569. REIDSMA, P., TEKELENBURG, T., VAN DEN BERG, M. and ALKEMADE, R., 2006. Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114, pp. 86-102. ROBINSON, R.A. and SUTHERLAND, W.J., 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, pp. 157-176.

TALLOWIN, J.R.B., SMITH, R.E.N., GOODYEAR, J. and VICKERY, J.A., 2005. Spatial and structural uniformity of lowland agricultural grassland in England: a context for low biodiversity. Grass and Forage Science, 60(3), pp. 225-236. TILMAN, D., FARGIONE, J., WOLFF, B., D’ANTONIO, C., DOBSON, A., HOWARTH, R., SCHINDLER, D., SCHLESINGER, W.H., SIMBERLOFF, D. and SWACKHAMER, D., 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science, 292(5515), pp. 281284.

Calf welfare AHDB MARKET INTELLIGENCE 2011, Update on the Current Situation of Calf Registrations and Market Trends, http:// www.rspca.org.uk/webContent/ staticImages/Microsites/ CalfForum/Documents/ calf_ registrations_and_market_ trends_march_2011_graph.pdf BROOM, D.M., 2003. Causes of Poor Welfare in Large Animals During Transport. Veterinary Research Communications, 27(suppl. 1), pp. 515-518. CAVE, J.G., CALLINAN, A.P.L. and WOONTON, W.K., 2008. Mortalities in bobby calves associated with long distance transport. Australian Vetinary Journal, 83(1-2), pp. 82-84. DCC, OSC, UOR, DEFRA, CABI and UOG, , Compendium of Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Farming. Available: www.organicvet.co.uk/

Cattleweb/disease/Scour/ scourPrint.htm. DE PASSILLE, A.M. and RUSHEN, J., 2009. What is a happy organic calf? An ethologists view. 14. National Veterinary Institute. GODDEN, S., 2008. Colostrum Management for Dairy Calves. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 24(1), pp. 19-39. GRIGOR, P.N., COCKRAM, M.S., STEELE, W.B., MCINTYRE, J., WILLIAMS, C.L., LEUSHUIS, I.E. and VAN REENEN, C.G., 2004. A comparison of the welfare and meat quality of veal calves slaughtered on the farm with those subjected to transport and lairage. Livestock Production Science, 91(3), pp. 219. KEHOE, S.I., JAYARAO, B.M. and HEINRICHS, A.J., 2007. A Survey of Bovine Colostrum Composition and Colostrum Management Practices on Pennsylvania Dairy Farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 90(9), pp. 4108-4116. KNOWLES, T.G., WARRISS, P.D., BROWN, S.N., EDWARDS, J.E., WATKINS, P.E. and PHILLIPS, A.J., 1997. Effects on calves less than one month old of feeding or not feeding them during road transport of up to 24 hours. Veterinary Record, 140, pp. 116-124. MISCH, L.J., DUFFIELD, T.F., MILLMAN, S.T. and LISSEMORE, K.D., 2007. An investigation into the practices of dairy producers and veterinarians in dehorning dairy calves in Ontario. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 48(12), pp.

77

1249-1254. STAFFORD, K.J. and MELLOR, D.J., 2005a. Dehorning and disbudding stress and its alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal, 165(3), pp. 337-349. STAFFORD, K.J. and MELLOR, D.J., 2005b. The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: a review. The New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 53(5),. VASSEUR, E., BORDERAS, F., CUE, R.I., LEFEBVRE, D., PELLERIN, D., RUSHEN, J., WADE, K.M. and DE PASSILLE, A.M., 2010. A survey of dairy calf management practices in Canada that affect animal welfare. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(3), pp. 13071316.

Cow health BENNETT, R. and IJPELAAR, J., 2005. Updated Estimates of the Costs Associated with Thirty Four Endemic Livestock Diseases in Great Britain: A Note. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(1), pp. 135144. CLARKSON, M.J., DOWNHAM, D.Y., FAULL, W.B., HUGHES, J.W., MANSON, F.J., MERRITT, J.B., MURRAY, R.D., RUSSELL, W.B., SUTHERST, J.E. and WARD, W.R., 1996. Incidence and prevalence of lameness in dairy cattle. Veterinary Record, 138, pp. 563-567. ESSLEMONT, R.J., KOSSAIBATI, M.A. and ALLCOCK, J., 2001. Economics of fertility in dairy cows, Dairy Cattle Fertility

Workshop, 19th and 20th November, 2001 2001, University of Reading, SAC. HOGEVEEN, H., HUIJPS, K. and LAM, T.J.G.M., 2011. Economic aspects of mastitis: New developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 59(1), pp. 16-23. KOSSAIBATI, M.A., ESSLEMONT, R.J. and WATSON, C., 1999. The Costs of Lameness in Dairy Herds, National Cattle Lameness Conference 1999. WHITAKER, D.A., KELLY, J.M. and SMITH, S., 2000. Disposal and disease rates in 340 British dairy herds. Veterinary Record, 146, pp. 363-367. WILESMITH, J.W., FRANCIS, P.G. and WILSON, C.D., 1986. Incidence of clinical mastitis in a cohort of British dairy herds. Veterinary Record, 118, pp. 199-204.

Feed type and source CEDERBERG, C., PERSSON, U.M., NEOVIUS§, K., MOLANDER, S. and CLIFT, R., 2011. Including Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in the Carbon Footprint of Brazilian Beed. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(5), pp. 1773-1779. EU, 2003. REGULATION (EC) No 1829/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. FOE, 2006. Briefing: Genetically modified animal feed. FSA, 2011-last update, GM material in animal feed


[Homepage of Food Standards Agency], [Online]. Available: http://www.food.gov.uk/ gmfoods/gm/gmanimal [27/10, 2011]. OLTJEN, J.W. and BECKETT, J.L., 1996. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Animal Science, 74, pp. 1461409. WOLFENBARGER, L.L. and PHIFER, P.R., 2000. The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants. Science, 290(5499), pp. 2088-2093. WRI, , Earth Trends: The Environmental Information Portal [Homepage of World Resources Institute], [Online]. Available: http://earthtrends. wri.org/searchable_db/results. php?years=-1&variable _ID=348&theme=8&cID= &ccID=0 [27/10, 2011].

Fertiliser use BERNSTEIN, L.J., ROY, K.C., DELHOTAL, J., HARNISCH, R., MATSUHASHI, L., PRICE, K., TANAKA, E., WORRELL, F., YAMBA, Z. and FENGQI, 2007last update, Industry in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/ pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ ar4-wg3-chapter7.pdf. BURT T. P., N. HOWDEN J. K., WORRALL, F., WHELAN, M.J. and BIEROZA, M., 2011. Nitrate in United Kingdom Rivers: Policy and Its Outcomes Since 1970. 45(1), pp. 175. CORDELL, D., DRANGERT, J. and WHITE, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food

78

security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), pp. 292-305.

oxide from agriculture and its implications to the global nitrous oxide budget. 12.

DAWSON, C.J. and HILTON, J., 2011. Fertilser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus.

MULVANEY, R.L., KHAN, S.A. and ELLSWORTH, T.R., 2009. Synthetic Nitrogen Fertilisers Deplete Soil Nitrogen: A Global Dilema for Sustainable Cereal Production.

DEFRA, 2011-last update, Good agricultural practice, nutrients and fertilisers. Available: http://www.defra.gov. uk/food-farm/land-manage/ nutrients/ [November, 2011]. DEFRA, 2007-last update, Process: Farm management; Indicator C4: Fertiliser Use. Available: http://archive.defra. gov.uk/evidence/statistics/ foodfarm/enviro/observatory/ indicators/c/c4_fact.htm2011]. EUROPEAN FERTILIZER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, undatedlast update, The European Fertiliser Industry: Contributing to Sustainable Development. Available: http://www.efma.org/ documents/file/publications/ The%20European%20 Fertilizer%20Industry%20 -%20Contributing%20 to%20Sustainable%20 Development%20.pdf [November, 2011]. FAO, 2008-last update, Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2011/12. Available: ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/ cwfto11.pdf [November, 2011]. IFA, 2007. Sustainable Management of the Nitrogen Cycle in Agriculture and Mitigation of Reactive Nitrogen Side Effects. MOSIER, A. and C. KROEZE, 1998. A new approach to estimate emissions of nitrous

NIGGLI, U., FLIEßBACH, A., HEPPERLY, P. and SCIALABBA, N., 2009-last update, Low Greenhouse Gas Agriculture: Mitigation and Adaption Potential of Sustainable Farming Systems [Homepage of FAO], [Online]. Available: http:// orgprints.org/15690/1/nigglietal-2009-lowgreenhouse. pdf2011]. RIBAUDO, M., DELGADO, J., HANSEN, L., LIVINGSTON, M., MOSHEIM, R. and WILLIAMSON, J., September, 2011-last update, Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy [Homepage of USDA], [Online]. Available: http://www. ers.usda.gov/Publications/ ERR127/ERR127.pdf [Novemeber, 2011]. SMITH, P., D. MARTINO, Z., CAI, D., GWARY, H., JANZEN, P., KUMAR, B., MCCARL, S., OGLE, F., O’MARA, C., RICE, B., SCHOLES, O. and SIROTENKO, 2007-last update, Agriculture in climate change 2007: Mitigation [Homepage of IPCC], [Online]. Available: http://www. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter8. pdf2011]. UNEP, undated-last update, Cleaner Production Assessment in Dairy Processing [Homepage of UNEP], [Online]. Available: http://www.unep.fr/shared/

USDA, 2009-last update, Recent Volatility in US Fertiliser Prices: Causes and consequences. Available: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ AmberWaves/March09/PDF/ FertilizerPrices.pdf.

BUENGER, A., DUCROCQ, V. and SWALVE, H.H., 2001. Analysis of Survival in Dairy Cows with Supplementary Data on Type Scores and Housing Systems from a Region of Northwest Germany. Journal of Dairy Science, 84, pp. 15311541.

D.M. and VON KEYSERLINGK, M. A. G., 2004. Bacterial Populations on Teat Ends of Dairy Cows Housed in Free Stalls and Bedded with Either Sand or Sawdust. Journal of Dairy Science, 87(6), pp. 1694-1701.

Milk yield

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE)

METCALF, J.A., 1998. Dairy Cow Housing - Straw Yards or Cubicles. 96/R3/17. Milk Development Council.

FAO, 2010. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment.

MILLER, K. and WOODGUSH, D.G.M., 1991. Some effects of housing on the social behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production, 53, pp. 271-278.

publications/pdf/2480-CpDairy. pdf2011].

FLYSJO, A., HENRIKSSON, M., CEDERBERG, C., LEDGARD, S. and ENGLUND, J., 2011. The impact of various parameters on the carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Agricultural Systems, 104(6), pp. 459-469. GARNETT, T., 2009. Livestockrelated greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4), pp. 491-503. THORPE, A., 2009. Enteric fermentation and ruminant eructation: the role (and control?) of methane in the climate change debate. Climate Change, 93, pp. 407-431.

Housing facilities (indoor and outdoor) ALBRIGHT, J.L., 1993. Feeding Behavior of Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 76(2), pp. 485-498.

79

SAC, 2003. Behaviour studies relating to the welfare of intensively housed dairy cows. AW1006. DEFRA. SOMERS, J. G. C. J., FRANKENA, K., NOORDHUIZEN-STASSEN, E.S. and METZ, J.H.M., 2003. Prevalence of Claw Disorders in Dutch Dairy Cows Exposed to Several Floor Systems. Journal of Dairy Science, 86(6), pp. 2082-2093. TELEZHENKO, E. and BERGSTEN, C., 2005. Influence of floor type on the locomotion of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 93(3-4), pp. 183197. WECHSLER, B., SCHAUB, J., FRIEDLI, K. and HAUSER, R., 2000. Behaviour and leg injuries in dairy cows kept in cubicle systems with straw bedding or soft lying mats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 69(3), pp. 189-197. ZDANOWICZ, M., SHELFORD, J.A., TUCKER, C.B., WEARY,

DAIRY CO, 2011. Dairy statistics, an insiders guide 2011. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. DOBSON, H., SMITH, R.F., ROYAL, M.D., KNIGHT, C.H. and SHELDON, I.M., 2007. The High-producing Dairy Cow and its Reproductive Performance. Reproduction in Domestic Animals, 42(s2), pp. 17-23. FLEISHER, P., METZNER, M., BEYERBACH, M., HOEDEMAKER, M. and KLEE, W., 2001. The Relationship Between Milk Yield and the Incidence of Some Diseases in Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 84(9), pp. 20252035. HAWORTH, G.M., TRANTER, W.P., CHUCK, J.N., CHENG, Z. and WATHES, D.C., 2008. Relationships between age at first calving and first lactation milk yield, and lifetime productivity and longevity in dairy cows. Veterinary Record, 162, pp. 643-647. HEINS, B.J., HANSEN, L.B. and SEYKORA, A.J., 2006. Calving Difficulty and Stillbirths of Pure Holstein versus Crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal


of Dairy Science, 89(7), pp. 2805-2810. LOEFFLER, S.H., DE VRIES, M.J. and SCHUKKEN, Y.H., 1999. The Effects of Time of Disease Occurrence, Milk Yield, and Body Condition on Fertility of Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, pp. 2589-2604. MARKUSFELD, O., GALON, N. and EZRA, E., 1997. Body condition score, health, yield and fertility in dairy cows. Veterinary Record, 141, pp. 67-72. MEE, J.F., 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: a review. The Veterinary Journal, 176(1), pp. 93-101. OLTENACU, P.A. and BROOM, D.M., 2010. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare, 19(S), pp. 29-39. RAUW, W., KANIS, E., NOORDHUIZEN-STASSEN, E. and GROMMERS, F., 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science, 56, pp. 15-33. RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, H., HULTGREN, J., BAGE, R., BERGQVIST, A.S., SVENSSON, C., BERGSTEN, C., LIDFORS, L., GUNNARSSON, S., ALGERS, B., EMANUELSON, U., BERGLUND, B., ANDERSSON, G., HAARD, M., LINDHE, B., STALHAMMAR, H. and GUSTAFFSON, H., 2008. Reproductive Performance in High-producing Dairy Cows: Can We Sustain it Under Current Practice? IVIS Reviews

80

in Veterinary Medicine, . SIMIANER, H., SOLBU, H. and SCHAEFFER, L.R., 1991. Estimated Genetic Correlations Between Yield and Disease Traits in Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, pp. 43584365. SNIJDERS, S.E.M., DILLON, P., O’CALLAGHAN, D. and BOLAND, M.P., 2000. Effect of genetic merit, milk yield, body condition and lactation number on in vitro oocyte development in dairy cows. Theriogenology, 53(4), pp. 981-989. USDA, 2008. Dairy: World Markets and Trade. FD 2-07.

Reproductive technology BUTLER, L.J. and WOLF, M.M., 2010. Economic Analysis of the Impact of Cloning on Improving Dairy Herd Composition. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 13(2), pp. 194-207. DOBSON, H., WALKER, S.L., MORRIS, M.J., ROUTLY, J.E. and SMITH, R.F., 2008. Why is it getting more difficult to successfully artificially inseminate dairy cows? Animal, 2(8), pp. 1104-1111. LANE, E.A., AUSTIN, E.J. and CROWE, M.A., 2009. Oestrous synchronisation in cattle current options following the EU regulations restricting use of oestrogenic compunds. Animal Reproduction Science, 109, pp. 1-16. NORMAN, H.D., HUTCHINSON, J.L. and MILLER, R.H., 2010. Use of sexed semen and its

effects on conception rate, calf sex, dystocia and stillbirth of Holsteins in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(8), pp. 3880-3890. RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, H., HULTGREN, J., BAGE, R., BERGQVIST, A.S., SVENSSON, C., BERGSTEN, C., LIDFORS, L., GUNNARSSON, S., ALGERS, B., EMANUELSON, U., BERGLUND, B., ANDERSSON, G., HAARD, M., LINDHE, B., STALHAMMAR, H. and GUSTAFFSON, H., 2008. Reproductive Performance in High-producing Dairy Cows: Can We Sustain it Under Current Practice? IVIS Reviews in Veterinary Medicine, . SOUZA, A.H., AYRES, H., FERREIRA, R.M. and WILTBANK, M.C., 2008. A new resynchronisation system (Double-OvSynch) increases fertility at first postpartum timed AI in lactating dairy cows. Theriogenology, 70(2), pp. 208-215. STEVENSON, J.L., RODRIGUES, J.A., BRAGA, F.A., BITENTE, S., DALTON, J.C., SANTOS, J.E.P. and CHEBEL, R.C., 2008. Effect of Breeding Protocols and Reproductive Tract Score on Reproductive Performance of Dairy Heifers and Economic Outcome of Breeding Programs. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(9), pp. 3424-3438. VALERGAKIS, G.E., ARSENOS, G. and BANOS, G., 2007. Comparison of artificial insemination and natural service cost effectiveness in dairy cattle. Animal, 1, pp. 293-300.

VAN ARENDONK, J.A.M. and BIJMA, P., 2003. Factors affecting commercial application of embryo technologies in dairy cattle in Europe - a modelling approach. Theriogenology, 59(2), pp. 635-649.

Soil degradation DREWRY, J.J., CAMERON, K.C. and BUCHAN, G.D., 2001. Effect of simulated dairy cow treading on soil physical properties and ryegrass yield. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 44, pp. 181-190. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2002. Agriculture and natural resources: benefits, costs and potential solutions. The Environment Agency. LEDGARD, S.F., THOM, E.R., SINGLETON, P.L., THORROLD, B.S. and EDMEADES, D.C., Environmental impacts of dairy systems, Proceedings of the 48th Ruakura Farmer’s Conference, pp. 26-33. PIMENTEL, D., 2006. Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(1), pp. 119-137. POST, 2006. UK Soil Degradation. 265. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

81

Waste CHAPAGAIN, A. and JAMES, K., 2011. The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink waste in the UK. WWF, WRAP. GUSTAVSSON, J., CEDERBERG, C., SONESSON, U., VAN OTTERDIJK, R. and MEYBECK, A., 2011. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention . FAO. WESTHOEK, H., ROOD, T., VAN DEN BERG, M., JANSE, J., NIJDAM, D., REUDINK, M. and STEHFEST, E., 2011. The protein puzzle: The consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Water pollution DEFRA, 2011-last update, Catchment Sensitive Farming. Available: http://www.defra.gov. uk/food-farm/land-manage/ nitrates-watercourses/csf/. DEMIREL, B., YENIGUN, O. and ONAY, T.T., 2005. Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewaters: a review. Process Biochemistry, 40(8), pp. 2583-2595. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, undated-last update, How to comply with your environmental permit: Additional guidance for: Dairy and Milk Processing Sector (EPR 6.13). Available: http://publications.environmentagency.gov.uk/PDF/

GEHO0209BPIX-E-E.pdf. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, 2002. Agriculture and natural resources: benefits, costs and potential solutions. The Environment Agency. LIUA, Y.Y. and HAYNESA. R. J, 2011. Origin, Nature and Treatment of Effluents from Dairy and Meat Processing Factories and the Effects of their Irrigation on the quality of Agricultural Soils. 41(17), pp. 1531. OECD, 2004-last update, Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: The dairy sector. Available: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/55/21/33798326. pdf. ONGLEY, D.E., 1996-last update, Control of water pollution from agricultureFAO irrigation and drainage paper 55. Available: http:// www.fao.org/docrep/W2598E/ W2598E00.htm. PARRIS, K., 2011. Impact of Agriculture on Water Pollution in OECD Countries: Recent Trends and Future Prospects. 27(1), pp. 33. RIPA, M.N., LEONE, A., GARNIER, M. and LO PORTO, A., 2006. Agricultural Land Use and Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint Water Pollution. 38(2), pp. 253. UNEP, undated-last update, Cleaner Production Assessment in Dairy Processing [Homepage of UNEP], [Online]. Available: http://www.unep.fr/shared/ publications/pdf/2480-CpDairy. pdf2011].


Appendix B Programme Measures VIDAL, G., CARVALHO, A., MÉNDEZ, R. and LEMA, J.M., 2000. Influence of the content in fats and proteins on the anaerobic biodegradability of dairy wastewaters. Bioresource technology, 74(3), pp. 231239.

Water use DAIRY CO, 2009-last update, Effective use of water on dairy farms. Available: http://www. dairyco.net/news/technicalarticles/august-2009/effectiveuse-of-water-on-dairy-farms. aspx2011]. DEFRA, 2011-last update, Water Usage in Agriculture and Horticulture: Results from the Farm Business Survey 2009/10 and the Irrigation Survey 2010. Available: http://www.defra. gov.uk/statistics/files/defrastats-foodfarm-farmmanagefbs-waterusage20110609.pdf [October, 2011]. DEFRA, 2007-last update, The Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts associated with Liquid Milk Consumption in the UK and its Production: A review of literature and evidence. Available: http://www. defra.gov.uk/publications/files/ pb13644-milk-envsoceconimpacts-080111.pdf [October, 2011]. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2006-last update, Water consumption cut in dairy operations. Available: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ themes/water/features2006/ dairy.htm [October, 2011].

between water, agriculture, food security and poverty. Available: http://www.fao.org/nr/ water/docs/waterataglance.pdf. FAO, 1996-last update, Management of Waste from Animal Product Processing: Dairy Industry. Available: http:// www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/ LEAD/X6114E/x6114e06. htm#b6-4.2.3.%20Air%20 pollution [October, 2011].

Here we provide some examples of the measures for each programme area: the measures are as simple as possible, directly relevant to the issue, practical to undertake and validated through science.

1. Target more milk from forage and from other sustainably grown protein and energy feed sources — t of forage DM/ha — kg soya used / litre of milk 2. Improve feed conversion efficiency from sustainable feed sources

FAO, 1988-last update, Milk and dairy products: production and processing costs. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ x6931e/X6931E00.htm#TOC [October, 2011].

— kg DM intake / litre of milk (liquid milk) — kg DM intake / kg milk solids (cheese)

JANZEN, H.H., 2011. What place for livestock on a regreening earth? 166-167, pp. 783.

3. Improve waste management and efficient use of on farm nutrients

MDC, 2007-last update, Effective use of water on dairy farms. Available: http://www. dairyco.net/media/10351/ effectiveuseofwaterondairyf arms.pdf [October, 2011].

— Total manure (slurry and FYM) applied during growing season/ha — N, P and K in soil — kg bag fertiliser / ha

SCHLINK, A.C., NGUYEN, M.-. and VILJOEN, G.J., 2010. Water requirements for livestock production: a global perspective. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties, 29(3), pp. 603-619.

B2 Cow and Calf Measures 1. Drive lifetime productivity by identifying and promoting excellence in fertility and nutrition — Fertility index — Calving index — 100 day in calf rate — Average number of lactations — Lifetime milk solids/ milk yield 2. Drive lifetime productivity and a reduction in antibiotic use by identifying and promoting excellence in prevention of lameness, mastitis and infectious diseases — % of farms with bactoscan <50 000 — % of farms <250 000 SCC — % of farms with active management plan against Johnes — % of farms vaccinating against BVD, IBR, Leptospirosis — Mobility score 3. Deliver a comprehensive solution for dairy bull calves — % calves finished in UK beef supply chain — Proportion of calves suitable for rearing

UNDP, 2011-last update, UNDP Goal Wash: Achieving the MDG’s. Available: http://www. undp.org/water/.

— Calf Immunoglobulin G (IgG)

UNDP, 2006-last update, Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/ en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf [October, 2011].

FAO, 2007-last update, Water at a glance: The relationship

82

B1 Feed for the Future Measures

83


B3 Wheel Yields and Deals Measures

B4 Reduce Renew Recycle Measures

B5 Food for Future Measures

1. Ensure milk price schedules are compatible with and incentivise sustainable production systems

1. Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency

1. Develop new products and packaging that are affordable, valued and sustainable

— GHGE per / t product produced

Sales of new products

— litre of water / litre milk produced — % of water used that is recovered — litre of water / litre of milk processed — litre water / kg packaged product sold — Processing costs/t of product

— kg heavy fuel oil / t product produced

— t packaging / t product

— % energy sourced from renewable sources

— % packaging recyclable in the home / biodegradable

— kWh / t (packaged) product sold

— % packaging made from recycled or sustainable sources

— kWh / litre milk produced (farm) / processed 2. Target zero process and packaging waste to landfill

2. Utilise different elements of milk to enhance economic

2. Improve logistics efficiency of all transport movements

— % process waste to landfill

— p/litre transport costs in to factory

— t packaging waste by t finished product

— £/t of product transport costs out of factory

— % packaging that is recyclable

A1

sustainability and reduce waste — % weight of solids in the milk which finds its way into the finished products

3. Reduce water use on farm and improve efficiency of water use at factory A16

3. Reduce waste at consumer level without causing increases through the rest of the supply chain A14

— litre water/ litre milk processed

— shelf life (days) by product type

— litre water / kg packaged product sold

— total life (days) by product type

— % of water used that is recovered — litre of water/ litre of milk produced

84

— % market share of new product

The Sustainability Group which reports to the First Milk Board will continue to lead the development of our Sustainability strategy and monitor progress against agreed targets.

The Group is chaired by non-executive director, Richard Davis and also includes Kate Allum (chief executive), Paul Flanagan (external relations director), Sue Wilson (senior executive director), Lee Truelove (head of communications), Alan Taylor (membership director), Paul Rowe (manufacturing director) and Chris Gooderham (strategic projects director).

All of the material published in this report is copyright of First Milk and other copyright holders. No material in this report may be reproduced, modified, resold or republished in any form without express written permission from First Milk. When material from this report is referred to in any media, we ask that full acknowledgement be given to First Milk. While First Milk has taken all reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of the information presented in this report it does not make any warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information within or accessible through the report. The user of this report understands that neither First Milk nor any third parties who may provide information to First Milk for dissemination purposes accept any responsibility or liability of any nature wheresoever arising from either the content of or the use by any party of the report or of any information contained or accessible therein.

85


If you would like to talk to someone at First Milk about how we approach Sustainability, please contact: Paul Flanagan

Lee Truelove

Email: paulflanagan@firstmilk.co.uk

Email: leetruelove@firstmilk.co.uk

Telephone: +44 [0] 7767 241452

Telephone: +44 [0] 7767 241507

This report is printed on recycled paper made from 100% post consumer fibres.


Millions discover their favorite reads on issuu every month.

Give your content the digital home it deserves. Get it to any device in seconds.