1. ELPEN Application of the CEAS/EFNCP dairy farm classification to the Dutch and Danish situation Aberdeen, October 2000

2. Applying the CEAS/EFNCP dairy farm classification For Netherlands: Used the Dutch individual farm database 1998 (meitelling): containing 110000 farms (all farms above 3 ESU) Extensive list of characteristics per farm Agricultural areas of the Netherlands as geographical entity (soil) For Denmark: Used survey data of two samples Containing 73 and 31 farms Extensive list of characteristics per farm

3. Farms with >= 10 dairy cows At pasture > 3 months At pasture < 3 months Herd > 100 cows No fodder produced L1 Industrial Grass 50%-80% Grass > 80% G1 Intensive grass G2 Permanent grass Cropping > 50% UAA Cropping < 50% UAA Maize 25%-60% Maize <25% Maize > 60% CG1 conventional Mixed CG2 Organic mixed Low input M1 Silage maize L3 Summer feeding MX Intensive Silage Maize LU/Ha <1.25 LU/Ha >=1.25

5. Denmark

6. Conclusions Ireland EU-point of view: Policy will always be broad. Broad descriptors needed to classify systems in relation to: water quality soil landscape Fine tuning needed to classify habitats Overall conclusion: Classification is Useful for broad classification understandable both in terms of environmental impact and in agricultural practice

7. It is possible to fit the Danish dairy farms into the CEAS and EFNCP typology. However, lack of data and the sensitivity of some of the threshold values need to be explored further. Furthermore a new group of farms were found. The analysis of the different dairy systems showed differences between them regarding natural capital, environmental pressure and adoption to policies. This indicates that it is relevant to use the classification for assessing and shaping policies on nature and the environment. Conclusion I

9. Average N-surplus on the dairy systems

10. Conclusions II The analysis of the location shows little connection between single systems and single regions. The analysis indicates therefore that the systems occur in a specific mix in the different regions. Also the relationship between the CEAS and EFNCP typology and the typologies used in the agricultural censuses (Farm Structural Surveys) and the economic agricultural statistics (FADN) needs to be explored further. Is the CEAS and EFNCP typology a supplement or an alternative to these typologies? Do the more fine-scale approach of the CEAS and EFNCP typology fit hierarchical with the other typologies?