Development of circular agriculture (kringlooplandbouw) in the Netherlands and factors influencing (circular) dairy farming management

(1)

Development of circular agriculture

(kringlooplandbouw) in the Netherlands and factors

influencing (circular) dairy farming management

(2)

Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Human Geography

Title: Development of circular agriculture (kringlooplandbouw) in the Netherlands and

factors influencing dairy farming management

Name: Mariska van den Toren

Email: mariskavandentoren@gmail.com

UvA ID: 12296872

Master: Human Geography

Track: Environmental Geography

Course: GEO Track – Master Thesis Project

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dirk Strijker (University of Groningen)

Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Maarten Bavinck (University of Amsterdam)

Date of submission: 21s t of June 2019

(3)

‘Het klimaat begon te veranderen, figuurlijk en zelfs letterlijk, en de landbouw moest zich aanpassen.’ – Geert Mak

‘The climate began to change, figuratively and even literally, and agriculture had to adapt.’ – Geert Mak

(4)

(5)

1

Abstract

In September 2018, the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality published a policy note on circular agriculture. This note describes a type of (sustainable) farming management for the future of agricultural management in the Netherlands, focusing on a minimum of external input on farms. Since the publication, multiple (Dutch) reports have been written describing circular agriculture and the practical experiences with it. This research focuses on dairy farms in the Netherlands and factors influencing dairy farming management in the context of circular agriculture. It shows and elaborates four themes that more or less influence dairy farming management. These four themes are distinguished as the social and economic status of farmers, the social contacts of the farmers, the challenges in the agricultural sector and the laws and regulations involved with farming in the Netherlands. The influence of these four themes on dairy farming management will be discussed and shows that some themes, e.g. social contacts and laws and regulations, are more dominant in influencing the farming management than other themes, like the social and economic status. Consequently, the definition of circular agriculture is discussed and more specified according to the farmers’ experiences with the circular agricultural practices. Nine farmers throughout the Netherlands have been interviewed and their personal experiences of farming management is compared. It shows the relevance of personal, locational and contextual farming stories in discussions about the future of the agricultural sector in the Netherlands.

Keywords: Agriculture, Circular agriculture, Circularity, Dutch farmers, Dairy farming, Farming

(6)

2

Acknowledgements

Before you lies my Master’s thesis ‘Development of circular agriculture (kringlooplandbouw) in the Netherlands and factors influencing dairy farming management’, which I wrote from February 2019 until July 2019. My motivation to write a Master’s thesis on this topic started in the fall of 2018, when I was staying on an organic farm for a weekend. In that weekend, I read the policy note about circular agriculture and I had some interesting conversations with the farmer that motivated me to find out more about the agricultural sector in the Netherlands. Without having an agricultural background and therefore looking to agriculture through a different lens, I hope that I can bring a fresh perspective to the sector.

I want to thank the University of Amsterdam for their flexibility in choosing my own topic for my thesis and the approval of an external supervisor. Especially, I want to thank my supervisor, Dirk Strijker, for the flexibility and enthusiasm in supervising me with my thesis and the effort he puts in providing feedback on my sometimes-chaotic use of language. I want to thank Gerda van Eck for bringing me in contact with him. Also, I want to thank the farmers I spoke with, who were hospitable to let me in their house, show me around their farm, and had the time to talk with me about their personal experiences in the agricultural sector. Lastly, I want to thank my family for constantly updating me with new articles about circular agriculture and especially my sister and Kenneth, who helped me through the last bits.

I hope that you, as a reader, will gain more insight on the aspects of circular agriculture and learn about factors influencing dairy farming management in the Netherlands with the help of my Master’s thesis.

List of abbreviations

LNV Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur & Voedselkwaliteit LTO Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie

NFW Noordelijke Friese Wouden

RVO Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland VBBM Vereniging tot Behoud van Boer en Milieu VKA Vruchtbare Kringloop Achterhoek

(7)

3

1. Introduction

1.1 Agricultural introduction

The agricultural sector has challenges to face in terms of producing enough food for the growing worldwide population in the future and thereby keeping in mind the planet’s environmental thresholds. Due to the growing impact of food production on the environment, a more sustainable type of farming is needed. Since dairy farms in the Netherlands emit 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector (RVO, 2016, p. 13) and obtain 48% of the total land in livestock farming and agriculture (CBS, 2019a), this research will focus on this type of farming.

In June 2018, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published the ‘Staat van de Boer’ (translated as State of the Farmer). It is a survey research among 2287 farmers, of which 56.7% (1296 farmers) are dairy farmers (Geelen Consultancy, 2018). One of the interesting outcomes of the research is that almost 50% of the total farmers mention that they are willing to transform their farming management to a more sustainable form in the next ten years. The questionnaire includes questions about multiple themes, that in this research are divided in four themes: 1) the social and economic status of the farmer, 2) the social contacts of the farmers, 3) the agricultural challenges and 4) the laws and regulations in the sector. Another interesting point is that 85% of the total farmers agree on the statement that farmers work hard but receive little appreciation from society (Trouw, 2018). Some questions that arise from these outcomes are how these farmers can change their farming management to a more sustainable form and why so many farmers experience little appreciation for the profession they perform.

One of the more sustainable forms of farming management is ‘kringlooplandbouw’ (LNV, 2018), which is translated as ‘circular agriculture’ in this research. This term is not officially translated into English, which will get more attention in the theoretical framework. Circular agriculture is a farming management that focuses on minimizing the external input on a farm to minimize losses and leaching to the soil, water and air. The external input that is put on the farm, comes from the direct region. Circular agriculture can be seen as a way of bringing a new perspective in the agricultural sector and as a new way of looking at agriculture, since there has been a focus on traditional agriculture (which included product efficiency and upscaling) for over decades now. The first thoughts about circular agriculture are described around the 19th century, by Justus von Liebig. He published Es ist ja dies die Spitze meines Lebens, wherein he criticized his own younger work on fertilizer use. He stated that excessive fertilizer use could harm the soil and the quality of farm products (Von Liebig & Von Haller, 1973).

(10)

6 Today, much of the agricultural soil in the Netherlands is degraded due to nitrate and phosphorous leaching (LNV, 2018). This leaching is predominantly caused by the intensification of the agricultural modernization at the end of the 1960s, e.g. through fertilizer use (Holster et al., 2014, p. 10). This problem needs to be solved, in order to keep the soil as healthy as possible. Besides this impact of production on the environment, another challenge is to make the worldwide production of food sufficient for the amount of food and dairy that needs to be produced in the future, because there is a growing demand of both food and dairy at a global level (LNV, 2018; Krebbekx et al., 2011, p. 11). This statement is confirmed by Ibarrola Rivas and Nonhebel (2016), discussing the fact that a large increase in food consumption with an affluent diet, which are considered animal products, can be expected for the next decades (p. 128). Farmers are responsible for producing these increasingly needed products. However, they are under pressure, receive little appreciation from society and experience troubles with laws and regulations (Trouw, 2018). An example of a group of farmers that experienced troubles with laws and regulations is described in the next section and at the same time, the history of circular agriculture in the Netherlands is discussed.

1.2 History of circular agriculture in the Netherlands

A group of farmers in Friesland came together in 1992 (De Boer et al., 2012) to independently manage the regional landscaping elements, e.g. in a bottom-up network. They wanted to experiment with new forms of management and regenerating income through nutrient management as a new way of dairy farming. They practiced a rebalancing of the farm management and they thought in ‘soil-feed-animal-manure cycles’ (Van der Ploeg, Strijker & Hoofwijk, 2010, p.5). This development took place together with a law that prohibited surface broadcasting of manure in the Netherlands in 1990, in order to reduce ammonia emissions. Manure injectors was the way to spread the manure over the land. However, the farmers that used a new form of nutrient management used surface broadcasting of manure because the heavy machinery used for manure injectors were not suitable for their relatively small land plots. Therefore, action was undertaken. In 1995 two smaller local cooperatives (‘VEL’ and ‘VANLA’) formed the cooperation of the Noordelijke Friese Wouden (NFW). Scientists involved in these cooperatives as well. A lobby of the NFW followed and in 1996 these local farmers received an exemption from the manure injectors law and were challenged to find alternatives for reducing ammonia emissions. Manure and grassland experiments followed (Van der Ploeg, Strijker & Hoofwijk, 2010; Hees, Otto & Van der Schans, 2009). The manure experiments that the NFW performed were a success and projects to improve the manure application formed on regional (e.g. Sustainable Dairy Farming Drenthe), national (’Koeien en Kansen’, translated as ‘cows and opportunities’) and European levels (Dairyman, Interreg IV-B) (Hermans, Roep & Klerkx, 2014, p. 1269-1271). The tests of alternative manure applications and nutrient management did not remain

(11)

7 situated in the NFW, but spread out in provincial, regional and national pathways. First of all, through the cooperation with the Vereniging tot Behoud van Boer en Milieu (VBBM). Secondly, via commercial consultants and the Duurzaam Boer Blijven Drenthe (which means ‘remaining a sustainable farmer in Drenthe’) program. Also, veterinarians, the feeding industry, provincial government and the milk factory CONO involved. What came out of a convergence of the provincial and national track was the nutrient compass. This compass can be seen as the precursor of the KringloopWijzer, which is a tool to make it easier to improve the management of nutrients and to optimize the mineral balance (De Haan, 2012; Stuiver et al., 2013, p. 11-13). This management tool is developed by Wageningen University which is obligatory to fill in for dairy farmers since January 1st, 2017 (KringloopWijzer, n.d.). The described development of the NFW can be seen as the starting point of circular agriculture and the transition of sustainability on dairy farms (Van der Ploeg, Strijker & Hoofwijk, 2010, p. 11).

Besides the NFW, there are other organizations founded that aim for circular agriculture in specific regions of the Netherlands, e.g. Vruchtbare Kringloop Achterhoek (VKA) in Gelderland (Vruchtbare Kringloop Achterhoek, 2016) and Duurzaam Boer Blijven in Drenthe (Hermans, Roep & Klerkx, 2013).

1.3 Academic and societal relevance

Today, no qualitative research has been performed on the factors influencing dairy farmers practicing in a circular agricultural way in the direct sense. Moreover, the Dutch term kringlooplandbouw isn’t officially internationally translated and multiple mixed-up terms are used as translation. First, it’s relevant to contribute to the defining of the term (both for Dutch and global research), because a more fitting definition contributes to the academic debate about the topic. Secondly, a comparison will be made between the two types of farmers, to fill the gap of the comparison between a circular farmer and a conventional farmer. This makes clear what the (socially and economically) implications are for being a circular farmer and better defines the possible differences between the types of farmers. Subsequently, it will be made clear to what extent circular and conventional farmers socio-economically differ from each other. Thirdly, this qualitative research will increase the knowledge about what influences the farming management of farmers and can give interesting insights in the background and individual aspects of factors determining farming management. The research can be useful for writing policy about the motives of changing farming management and the influence that locational factors might play in this story. Also, circular agriculture can be seen as a mitigation measure for climate change and therefore, gaining more knowledge about circular agriculture is relevant.

(12)

8 One of the rising questions at the end of the policy note from the Dutch Ministry is: “Do the plans of circular agriculture strengthen the socio-economic position of the agricultural entrepreneur?” (LNV, 2018). This research can help formulating an answer to the question from the Dutch Ministry. Adding to this that more knowledge about circular agriculture is needed, because of the aforementioned benefits. Also, with a growing demand of food and dairy, it is useful to think about efficient food production in a sustainable way. Subsequently, this will help with creating a sustainable image of the agriculture sector, which will change the imaging of the sector in a positive way and will possibly make the farmers more appreciated than they feel now. Also, circular agriculture will contribute to the 2015 Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2019). Lastly, this research will contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals number two (zero hunger), six (clean water and sanitation), twelve (responsible consumption and production) and fifteen (life on land) from the United Nations (Sustainable Development Goals, n.d.), because all these goals touch upon the idea of circular agriculture.

1.4 Structure of research

This research is constructed as follows: below, the problem statement and research questions are presented (chapter 2). Then, the theoretical framework follows (chapter 3), which ends with the conceptual model. Then, the methodology is explained (chapter 4). This is followed with the data analysis (chapter 5). Lastly, the conclusion and discussion are presented (chapter 6).

(13)

9

2. Problem statement and research questions

In this section, the problem statement and research questions are formulated. First, the difference between organic, circular and conventional farmers is shortly discussed. This explanation will be more elaborated in the data analysis section but is relevant to present shortly in this section, in order to better understand the relevance of the problem and the research questions.

2.1 Difference organic, circular and conventional farmers

In Dutch, a ‘biologische’ farmer is an organic farmer. In the literature, other terms are used (Berentsen et al., 1998), but in this research, the translation of organic farmer is used. This translation is also used as the international definition for the certificate of organic farming (IFOAM, 2014). These organic farmers correspond to circular farmers, in the sense that a focus is laid on a sustainable and naturally farming management. For example, artificial fertilizer and concentrates are not supported (Berentsen et al., 1998, p. 313; LNV, 2018). According to existing literature, circular farmers focus on the closing of nutrient cycles and efficient land use on the farm and want to find an optimal balance of soil fertility (Stuiver & Verhoeven, 2010). These circular farmers differ from organic farmers, in the sense that there are no critical numbers attached to become a circular farmer, whilst an organic farmer has to follow specific rules and criteria in the farming management (Berentsen et al., 1998). Also, organic farmers are more depended on market forces than circular and conventional farmers, because an extra price is paid for organic milk via the quality mark (Agrimatie, 2019a). Circular agriculture can be seen as a way of thinking and a perspective, whilst organic farming is more about following specific rules to obtain a quality mark and entering a niche market with a higher milk price. Lastly, conventional farmers are more inclined to focus on highest production and yield per cow and quantity seems to be more important than quality. There isn’t a specific focus on producing as natural as possible (Haas, Wetterich & Köpke, 2001).

2.2 Problem statement

In the first part of the theoretical framework, multiple definitions of circular agriculture are being discussed. Subsequently, a description of a circular farmer is given. However, a more thorough definition and description is needed for both terms in order to enhance the debate about circular agriculture and make comparisons between different kinds of farmers possible. With this research, there is aimed to enhance the definitions of both circular agriculture and circular farmers with the help of experience from dairy farmers in the Netherlands. Secondly, there is tried to determine which factors influence the type of dairy farming in the Netherlands. As mentioned before, this research will

(14)

10 focus on dairy farming, because this choice will bring a focus to the research and makes it more reliable.

The results of the research from the Trouw on the state of the farmer show that there is a will to change to a more sustainable form of agriculture, e.g. circular agriculture, within ten years. So, the desired outcome of this research will be an incentive for conventional farmers to think about changing their farm management to a more sustainable form, like circular agriculture. Also, advice will be given to policy makers on how to influence the type of farming.

2.3 Research questions

The following research question is formulated:

‘How do circular dairy farmers compare to conventional dairy farmers and which factors influence the type of farming that is being practiced at Dutch dairy farms?’

This research question is tried to be answered with the sub questions that are formulated as follows:

• What is circular agriculture and what characterizes a circular farmer? • Which factors determine the type of farming that is practiced? • How do these factors influence the type of farming that is practiced?

(15)

11

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction in Dutch dairy farming

Before starting with the theoretical part, the general Dutch dairy farming management and functioning of a dairy farm is shown in box 1, to show the concept of a Dutch dairy farm.

Being a farmer is a unique profession, because most of the time you run a family business at your own house where private and work interact constantly. Also, a farmer works on land with animals, is an entrepreneur and dependent on (milk) prices in the market. In 2018, there were a total of 2.65 million cows on 19.025 dairy farm, of which 473 were organic farms and another 49 farms in transition (CBS, 2019b).

3.2 Context in agricultural discussion

Before discussing the existing literature involved in the dichotomy between circular and conventional farmers and factors influencing farming management, it’s relevant to sketch some context in the general global agricultural and environmental discussion, to show in which context all farmers are situated. Generally speaking, there are two main arguments in the agricultural debate about how to

BOX 1. A dairy farm in the Netherlands

Figure 1. A dairy farm

(Dirksen et al., 2013, p. 35)

Generally speaking*, a Dutch dairy farm is organized around the figure visible on the right. A dairy farmer possesses an average of 99 cows (CBS, 2017). These cows produce milk, which is obtained via a milking machine or robot at least twice a day. The milk will be picked up (e.g. by Friesland Campina). The cows excrete manure, which is put on the grass directly by a grazing cow or via machinery. Roughage is derived from the grassland and fed to the cows. Concentrates are being imported to feed to the cows. In this process, nitrate, phosphate and nitrous oxide are being emitted. Possible farm shops, other animals that are held on the farm and own agriculture is not included in the figure.

*Note that every dairy farm in the Netherlands is unique, with different types of business operations, number of hectares, number of cows, type of soil and employees involved.

(16)

12 solve agricultural (and environmental) problems. These are separated into the ecologists and the techno-optimists. The first spreads the mantra of consuming less and the latter of technological solutions. It’s a controversy that lead the environmental discussions for years now (Mann, 2018; Cullather, 2014). Mann (2018) describes them as the ‘Vogtians’ and ‘Borlaugians’, referencing to the scientists Vogt and Borlaug that are considered as the first foremen of these two ideas. Boogaard et al. (2011a) explain this controversy in different words. According to them, modernity in agriculture (which is the intensification in the farming sector after WWII) has two faces: a negative side with the exploitation of nature and loss of traditions and a positive side with progress, convenience and efficiency (p. 259). In the circular agricultural debate, these two arguments also occur: at the one hand there are farmers that are convinced of the organic and natural solutions and on the other hand the farmers that are convinced of the technological solutions and innovation in the sector to solve agricultural and environmental problems. A mix between these groups is also a possibility.

This framework will continue with definitions of circular agriculture (section 3), followed by the principles of circular agriculture (section 4). As from section 5, the framework is structured according to the four themes derived from the questionnaire from the Trouw mentioned in the introduction. These themes are leading in this research. In section 5, the social and economic position and in section 6, the social contacts of farmers are discussed. This is followed by the challenges in the sector in section 7 and the laws and regulations in section 8. The framework will be ended with the presentation of the conceptual model (section 9).

3.3 Translation and definitions of circular agriculture

Before the existing definitions of circular agriculture will be elaborated, the translation of the term in English is discussed. There is no full consensus on using the term circular agriculture as translation for kringlooplandbouw. The Dutch website of kringlooplandbouw (Kringlooplandbouw.nl, n.d.) states that the English term is agroecology, but looking at literature, this term is not the commonly used translation. In the English translation of the policy of the ministry, the term circular agriculture is used as translation for kringlooplandbouw (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, 2018). Moreover, there are used multiple definitions of farming styles worldwide that touch upon the idea of kringlooplandbouw. Examples from literature are Low External Input Agriculture, nature inclusive farming and biological dynamic farming (Altieri, 2018; Hees, Otto & Van der Schans, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2016; Wezel et al., 2009; Steiner, 2011). There are more terms used that consist of similar elements of circular agriculture, but only these mentioned above will be discussed. Interesting to note is that Van Doorn et al. (2016) point out the fact that definitions are often differently used, causing a fade of the meaning of the definitions, of which the word ‘sustainable’ is an example (p.9). Maybe the

(17)

13 definition of circular agriculture will follow as a fading term. Below, the different definitions that touch upon circular agriculture will be discussed:

• Agroecology: Agroecology is seen as a scientific discipline, as a movement, and as a practice that includes approaches to solve problems in the agricultural sector. First, it focused on crop production and protection, but nowadays, it also focuses on other problems, e.g. social and economic (Wezel et al., 2009, p. 503).

• Low External Input Agriculture: Low External Input Agriculture focuses on optimizing the minimized used input. It wants to prevent the environment from degradation and to enable long term production. Interesting about this definition is that it didn’t originate in places with too much external input, but rather where there was little input available, e.g. in the third world (Hees, Otto & Van der Schans, 2009, p. 10).

• Nature inclusive farming: Nature inclusive farming aims for a positive and mutual relation between the farming management and natural capital or an economically profitable agricultural system, that integrates natural resources sustainable in farming management, caring for ecological functions and biodiversity on and around the farm inclusively (Van Doorn et al., 2016, p. 11). The difference with circular agriculture is that the ‘nature’ side has a supporting role in circular agriculture.

• Biological dynamic farming: Biological dynamic farming is based on the anthroposophical principles of Rudolf Steiner that he described in 1924 and can be seen as a form of organic farming (Steiner, 2011). This type of farming also uses a quality mark (Stichting Demeter, 2019).

The term organic farming is not mentioned above, because this type of farming is clearly defined, in terms of strong criteria, as mentioned in the article of Berentsen et al. (1998), e.g. ‘the amount of concentrate used on the farm per cow per year (expressed in kg decimeter) may not exceed 20% of the yearly milk production (expressed in kg).’ (p. 313). Also, organic farming implies more labor and investing more time for a farmer (Holster et al., 2014, p. 51). Kringlooplandbouw can be merely described as a perspective and uses organic farming as inspiration, but kringlooplandbouw itself doesn’t involve any strong statistical criteria (yet). Organic farming is also sometimes described as the precursor of circular agricultural farming (Erisman & Verhoeven, 2019, p. 9) and can be seen as an inspiration for circular agriculture. Because both organic farming and circular agriculture can be distinguished as non-conventional types of farming, the term organic farming is used in the theoretical framework below to be able to compare the non-conventional type of farming with the conventional type of farming, which will create an insight in the non-conventional type of farming.

(18)

14 As mentioned, circular agriculture has not officially been defined and multiple authors define it in different ways (Erisman & Verhoeven, 2019; Hees et al., 2010; Hees, Otto & Van der Schans, 2009; Van Doorn et al, 2016; Stuiver & Verhoeven, 2010;). Hees et al. (2010) define circular agriculture as ‘optimizing the production with lesser external input.’ (p. 1). They appoint the importance of balancing the cycles of nitrate, phosphorous, carbon, energy and water (p. 7). Hees, Otto and Van der Schans (2009) don’t give a definition of circular agriculture, but a description, which is formulated as follows:

‘A management that is optimally tuned to the use of on the firm available and produced resources and supplies (sunlight, organic matter, minerals, labor, water, energy, landscape, experiential knowledge, etc.) and makes selective use of external inputs, with realization of an income on the long-term and with respect for natural systems.’ (p. 1-2).

Van Doorn et al. (2016, p. 27-28) define circular agriculture as:

‘A way of farming that strives for optimizing the cycles of nitrate, phosphate, potassium and carbon on the farm. These farms try to minimize their external input, e.g. fertilizer, concentrates, and increase resources from own farm, e.g. manure, roughage. If this leads to lower yields, it won’t be a problem as long as it is associated with lower costs.’ (p. 27).

Erisman and Verhoeven (2019) point out the fact of the closing of nutrient cycles and improving soil quality:

‘Circular agriculture is optimizing the business efficiency (economically and socially) by using as many own resources as possible in balance and with respect for the environment (soil, air, water and nature quality, landscape value, climate and animal welfare).’ (p. 9).

In most of the existing definitions, the main point of circular agriculture is minimizing the external input on a farm to minimize losses and leaching to the soil, water and air. The management has to be efficient, which can be defined as the relationship between inputs and outputs (Garnett, Röös & Little, 2015, p. 3). Figure 2 shows a visual representation of circular agriculture.

(19)

15

Figure 2. Visual representation of circular agriculture in the dairy sector

Holster et al., 2014, p. 20

Similar to the definitions of circular agriculture, definitions of a circular famer are also not explicitly given in existing literature. Smits and Linderhof (2015) do distinguish circular farmers that are certified via the VBBM, the association for the conservation of farmers and the environment, and the NFW. However, this certification is not independently certified and therefore not an official distinction. Beside this distinction, Van Doorn et al. (2016) describe circular farmers as farmers ‘that focus on high quality and utilization of manure and roughage’ (p. 27). Stuiver and Verhoeven (2010) describe circular farmers as:

‘Farmers that strive for lower costs and long-term sustainable management systems. Not focusing on highest production per cow, but a balance of optimal soil fertility, older cows, etc. This group of farmers see chances in the area they live in with the production of the landscape, biodiversity, clean drinking water and the social function of the farm in society.’ (p. 7).

Notice the fact that in these descriptions and definitions, no strong criteria are involved, in contrast to organic farming.

The policy note of the Dutch ministry gives a perspective and a broad direction about the future of farming but doesn’t give a clear definition with criteria which a farmer has to follow in order to be a circular farmer. Also, the policy note talks about the possibility of practicing kringlooplandbouw at multiple scales: international (markets as circular systems), national (the Netherlands as innovative circular agricultural leader), regional (cooperation with regional farmers) and local (on-firm and firm-specific) (LNV, 2018). In this research, the focus is laid on the local scale. It will be a research on the

(20)

16 (circular) dairy farmers and their (circular) agricultural and on-firm practices, in order to bring a focus to the research. To be able to better understand the idea of circular agriculture, the principles of it will be discussed below.

3.4 Principles of circular agriculture

To elaborate on the principles of circular agriculture, the People, Planet, Profit analysis can be used as an example. It is practiced as a way of analyzing sustainability in circular agriculture. This analysis shows that circular agriculture comes together with a better income, better working conditions and more job satisfaction (De Boer, 2003), summarized as ‘happy cows, happy earth, happy farmers’ (Stuiver & Verhoeven, 2010, p. 7). One of the arguments of farmers to not produce sustainable, is the higher cost price. However, with circular agriculture, resources are more efficiently used, which leads to less costs in external products (Verstegen, 2018, p. 2). The People, Planet, Profit analysis is consistent with the principles of circular agriculture, that Stuiver and Verhoeven (2010) distinguish. These principles can help a farmer to think in a circular way about the farm and give more direction to change the farming management. According to them, these principles of circular agriculture includes a healthy soil, healthy feed, healthy cows, healthy manure, ‘gezond boerenverstand’ (translated as a common sense of a farmer) and a healthy climate:

• A healthy soil includes using a minimum of fertilizer, the improvement of the soil fertility, low or no-tillage, the improvement of dewatering and optimal levels of organic matter and maximal carbon storage in the soil;

• Healthy feed includes a protein-poor diet, using as little concentrate as possible, producing more milk from own feed, cultivating concentrates on own farm and using (by-) products from the region as much as possible;

• Healthy cows mean older animals, less young cattle (lower replacement of cattle) and a more robust and various breeding;

• Healthy manure means a more flexible use of manure with injection and tuning it with weather conditions;

• Common sense of a farmer means learning together and stimulate each other via discussion groups, (area) cooperatives and combining nature and landscape management and;

• Healthy climate includes reducing the use of fossil fuels, generating energy without disrupting cycles (e.g. wind and solar energy), less transport, less tillage and less young stock on the farm, because fewer animals mean lower emissions of methane (p. 8). These principles can eventually add to the contribution of a more precise definition of circular agriculture.

(21)

17 These principles can be practiced by farmers to a more or lesser extent and farmers can put focus on some principles more dominantly than on other principles. In the research of Erisman et al. (2016) this ‘more or lesser extent’ is translated into ‘levels of ambitions’ for biodiversity on farms in the context of nature inclusive farming. The figure shown below (figure 3) is an example of a continuum for the relation between intensity and biodiversity on farms, which shows that farms can be put on a gradual line rather than visualized as a dichotomy. It shows that farms can be nature inclusive to a more or lesser extent (Erisman et al., 2016).

Figure 3. Variety for intensity level biodiversity per farm

Erisman et al., 2016, p. 167

Around 100 farms are included in this research. There are considered four levels of ambition of nature inclusive farming management: on the right side (business-as-usual), farms make a minimal use of biodiversity; they follow legal requirements but don’t pay extra attention for biodiversity. Then, at the basic level, some measures are taken to improve biodiversity, e.g. using organic insecticides. At the conscious level, more measures are taken and there is tried to improve the functional biodiversity by improving the soil and animal cycles. Then, at the top of the graph, there can be spoken of ‘best biodiversity practice’, where there is developed an adaptative system, which is fully land-bound (Erisman et al., 2017, p. 30-31). This research is focused on nature inclusive farming, but the report of Erisman and Verhoeven (2019, p. 6) about circular agriculture show a similar continuum, as shown in figure 4.

(22)

18

Figure 4. Score of transition from conventional farming management to circular farming

Erisman and Verhoeven, 2019, p. 6

From left to right, farms are increasingly practicing circular agricultural farming management. The widths of the columns show the estimated part of the total farms included in that column. This research will further focus on the factors influencing these different ‘levels’ of farming management.

3.5 Influences on a farm

3.5.1 Distinguished influencing factors

In this research, there are four factors distinguished that seem to influence the dairy farming management. These are formulated according to the returning themes in the questions asked in the research of the Trouw and are considered the 1) social and economic status, 2) social contacts, 3) agricultural challenges and 4) laws and regulations in the agricultural sector. Subsequently, these themes are divided in subthemes, e.g. ‘family’ as subtheme in the social contacts theme. Below, the first factor, social status, is elaborated.

3.5.2 Social status

Studies to sustainable farming, e.g. circular agriculture, should focus on ecological aspects, with economic and social aspects incorporated. In practice, the ecological aspect is largely elaborated, economic aspects are sometimes included but the social aspect is mostly neglected (Boogaard et al., 2011b, p. 1459), therefore the social aspect is included in this research, which will be elaborated below. This section will also include the social and economic aspects of organic farmers, assuming it is comparable to non-conventional circular agriculture.

(23)

19 Previous research described the main problems that farmers encounter as financial problems, loneliness and strong environmental regulations (Bouma, 2018; Nieuwsuur, 2018; Van Leeuwen, 2014). Other articles mention that for a farmer, social contacts are not self-evident (Duin, 2015) and that ‘farming is a lonely profession’ (Tischner et al., 2017, p. 63). The article of Boogaard et al. (2011a) adds to this and state that there is a growing social distance between farmers on the one hand and citizens and consumers on the other hand, especially in urbanized societies. Subsequently, people are not familiar with the practices, experiences and reality of farming these days (Boogaard et al., 2011a, p. 260). Consumers have little knowledge about the production of food, adds Wiskerke (2009, p. 373). Reijntjes, Haverkort and Waters (1992) wrote about the negative effects of high-external-input agriculture, which is considered as conventional farming and state that negative social impacts have become obvious due to this. The social status of a farmer can be improved by joining a cooperative, which most circular farmers do, because it helps creating a ‘renewed spirit’ and makes farmers feel more relevant. The cooperatives in which they take place, are motivational and create ‘social mechanisms of trust within the community’ (Renting & Van der Ploeg, 2001, p. 94).

Looking at the social aspects of organic farming, it seems that organic farmers are better able to use community resources for local development and create more participation in the local government. Also, organic farmers are more appreciated by society, because their more environmental-friendly produced products gain positive thoughts from society accompanied with more contact between the consumer and the farmer and an increased cooperation among farmers (MacRae, Frick & Martin, 2007, p. 1041-1042; Reganold & Wachter, 2016, p.4; Crowder & Reganold, 2015, p. 7611). MacRae,

Frick and Martin (2007) talk about ‘multiple environmental, social, and financial benefits’ of sustainable farming (p. 1037), of which circular agriculture is a type of. However, circular farming management asks a lot of administrative time from a farmer, but eventually the time is rewarded: the environment is less stressed due to efficiency and money is saved, because of a higher crop yield (Hakkenes, 2018). More economic aspects are discussed below.

3.5.3 Economic status

A general (financial) change in the agricultural sector is that family incomes are pressed downwards due to a change from supply drive to a demand driven chain. Power shifted from primary production to retailers. (Wiskerke, 2009, p. 372), which influences the economic status of farmers. Looking at the economic aspects of organic farming, a study of Reganold and Wachter (2016) shows that organic farming has 22% to 35% greater net present values and is more profitable than conventional agriculture (p. 4). Also, statistics show that organic dairy farms are financially more attractive, because the results of organic farms were 96.000 euro and for conventional farms 85.000 euro, which

(24)

20 means organic farm results are 13% higher than conventional (CBS, 2018). Organic farmers received 50,69 euro per 100 kg milk in 2017 as opposed to 40,19 euro for conventional farmers (Agrimatie, 2019a).

It may seem that organic farming reduces economic returns in the short term through new investments, but because the value that is put in to the production of products for the (local) community, economic benefits follow in the long-term and can double the family income compared to conventional farming (MacRae, Frick & Martin, 2007, p. 1041-1042). However, important to note is that not every farmer can change to an organic farming management, since the market for this type of production has a limit. Organic farming is a niche market and farmers receive an extra price for their organic milk. Not every farmer can enter that niche market, because then the net returns will be too low, and the market can saturate. However, it is possible for every farmer to be a circular farmer, since that isn’t a niche market that can get saturated.

In addition to the positive economic results for organic agriculture, literature also shows positive economic results for circular agriculture. De Boer et al. (2012) mention a higher year income for circular farmers (as a result of working more) of almost 30.000 euro, than for conventional farmers, which was almost 23.000 euro. These greater values can be obtained, for example, through efficient manure nutrient use. This will result in a lower import of feed and fertilizer and lower costs for the transportation (Petersen et al., 2007, p. 190). A production with improved manure, better grassland production and adjusted feed can save up to 3,20 euro per 100 kg milk (Van der Ploeg et al., 2003). Erisman and Verhoeven (2019) also conclude that circular agriculture is economically more robust (p. 32). When a management style is more specific (e.g. focusing on low external input with circular agriculture or following the rules with organic farming), the economic results seems to be better. Also, when farms handle a cost-saving method, which is the case with circular agriculture, there is less phosphorous and nitrogen use (Dirksen et al., 2013).

Lastly, besides these aspects of the economic status of farmers, there is also a trend of diversification on farms, where farmers have additional revenue-generating activities, e.g. farm shops. In 2016, 18.000 of the 55.700 farms generated some income with diversification (Agriholland, 2018).

According to the aforementioned literature, the following hypothesis is formulated: H1: Circular

(25)

21

3.6 Social contacts

On a farm, different types of social contacts can be distinguished that are in contact with the farmer and have influence on the farming management to some extent. In this thesis, the following social contacts are distinguished: other farmers (e.g. neighbors), consultants, family, the milk cooperative (e.g. Friesland Campina), a discussion group and an interest group (e.g. LTO). Knowledge, e.g. the policy about circular agriculture, isn’t transferred linearly through specialists and experts to farmers, but rather through interactions between heterogeneous actors in networks (Wood et al., 2014, p.1). Most of the people farmers talked to about knowledge in the research of Wood et al. (2014) were fellow farmers. They don’t value knowledge that is given by people in function with roles (e.g. the milk cooperative or policy writers), but rather from persons who have farming experience (e.g. farmers via a discussion group or neighbor farmers). These contacts are considered the primary contacts, also because this knowledge is empirically produced instead of rationally (p. 8). Adding to this that these knowledge contacts have an informal character (p. 7). In the report of Westerink et al. (2018) is mentioned that farmers copy practices from neighbor farmers and try to make it work on their farm as well. Wood et al. (2014) conclude that new (agricultural) knowledge is more communicated in conversations that happen every day than in ‘professionally facilitated meetings and activities’ (p. 9).

Verstegen (2018, p. 4) states that agricultural entrepreneurs can learn from each other in discussion groups to come up with a new revenue model for sustainable production. The discussion group is a group that can take on different forms and functions. Generally speaking, it is a group of 10-15 farmers from the region that comes together once in a while to learn about each other’s practices and compare each other’s economic results or KringloopWijzer outputs. Mostly, an expert on a specific theme will lead the club (e.g. a researcher from University of Wageningen or an employee of the Water Authority).

Lastly, the milk cooperative can influence by introducing programs like Friesland Campina does with Foqus Planet (introduced in 2015) or PlanetProof, which stimulates the farmer to score points on themes like biodiversity and climate.

Besides the above-mentioned distinguished contacts, Wood et al. (2014) distinguish several other types of contacts that didn’t come back in this research, e.g. industry goods, merchants, scientists and veterinarians (p. 5). These are excluded in the conceptual model and this framework, since these contacts weren’t mentioned in the semi-structured interviews of the farmers in this research.

(26)

22 According to the literature about social contacts, the following hypothesis is formulated: H2: Social

contacts, e.g. fellow farmers, the milk cooperative and discussion groups, can influence the type of farming which is being practiced.

3.7 Challenges in the Dutch agricultural sector

The challenges in the Dutch agricultural sector distinguished here, found in existing literature, are the general problems mentioned by the Dutch Ministry, the degraded soil, the possible negative influence of the European agricultural policy and the price paid for (agricultural) products, the negative perception of consumers media of farmers, firm-specific regulations and farm successor. Although this theme is more contextual of nature and therefore not completely suitable for the theoretical framework, it is discussed in this section to keep the research structured. In this way, the four themes (social and economic status, social contacts, challenges and laws and regulations) are discussed in a row, which makes the argument more coherent.

3.7.1 Problems mentioned by the Dutch Ministry

In the policy of the Dutch Ministry the following challenges are mentioned: the cost reduction and production increase are pressing on the environment. In the Netherlands, this means that the biodiversity, the environment, the quality of the drinking water, the fertility of the soil and the attractiveness of the landscape has decreased. Also, the distance between farmers and consumers is getting wider, due to the urbanization trends and the decrease of the agricultural workforce. The effect is that farmers feel less appreciation from society (LNV, 2018, p. 11-12; Trouw, 2018). This was also mentioned in section 4. Change is needed, according to the Ministry, in order to decrease the emission of fossil fuels. This has to go along with a more careful use of raw materials, resources and the environment and producing less waste. Thinking about solutions for these challenges need to go together with considering the economic returns for farmers. After all, it has to be profitable for farmers to manage a farm (LNV, 2018, p. 15-16). Verstegen (2018) adds that the government should include support for adding value to the system, since our system of innovation has a focus on improving the efficiency (p. 6).

3.7.2 Importance of the soil and land-bound

Most of the principles of circular agriculture named above by Stuiver and Verhoeven (2010) can be brought back to the soil. This shows the importance of the soil in circular agriculture and how it is seen as the spindle of agricultural management. A fertile soil means higher yields, creates a natural protection against extreme weather and minimizes losses of nitrogen to the air and water (Scholten et al., 2018). And eventually, our food is grown on the soil. A challenge arises, because the soil has

(27)

23 seen a decrease in the organic matter and densification in the subsoil (Van Doorn et al., 2016). This deterioration of the soil quality is associated with a need to think about transforming agricultural management and a possible rising popularity for circular agriculture.

Another challenge arises with the upcoming importance of grondgebondenheid (translated as land-bound). The policy of the ministry states this has an increasing importance, especially in circular agricultural practices (LNV, 2018, p. 23). It’s a definition that is defined in multiple ways. According to the Meststoffenwet (a manure law), it means having no more cows than having land. This implies counting the cows on a farm. However, the definition of LTO is more complex: a dairy farm is land-bound if 65% of the protein is derived from own land and feeding contracts are made within a radius of 20 kilometers (LTO, 2018; Strijker, 2019).

3.7.3 The role of European agricultural policy

The Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Common Agricultural Policy of the EU) grants subsidies to farmers in Europe for innovation, climate and landscape management. The possible new policy, that will start in 2021 strives, among others, for a better climate and for the enforcement of the socio-economic structure of rural areas (Erisman & Van Doorn, 2018, p. 6). This means that a positive, attractive policy is important to be motivated to be a sustainable farmer. However, a study of Terluin et al. (2018) estimates that if the policy will be implemented, a decrease in the incomes of farmers is expected, because of lower allowances in 2021 and a lower expected income (p. 23). This expectation is a difficult aspect in the upscaling and attractiveness of circular agriculture and the minimizing of greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge will be to obtain sufficient support for circular agriculture, because the average dairy farmer won’t change the management until legislation obligates them to do so or when the economic returns are sufficient to invest in the change (Šebek & Schils, 2006, p. 48). Smits et al. (2019, p. 26) mention a challenge regarding European policy and legislation, stating that regulation is sectoral based, whilst talking about circular agriculture, agriculture and nature are not different sectors, but integrated. Legislation should therefore be integral, instead of sectoral.

3.7.4 Market price, negative perceptions, firm-specific regulations and farm successor

Other challenges in the agricultural sector that can be derived from literature are the price paid in the market, negative perceptions by consumers, firm-specific regulations and farm successor. These challenges are discussed below in this order.

(28)

24 A challenge in the Dutch agricultural sector and especially one that prevents farmer to make their production more sustainable is the price the market pays for products, because many consumers still choose the cheapest dairy product (Verstegen, 2018, p. 3). Wiskerke (2009) notices two trends in the systems of food provision and consumption. Firstly, there is observed a disconnecting development between producer and consumers of food. Secondly, through disembedding (which means the loss of local and regional character, because products places are changed), consumers lose the identification of products (p. 370). Goewie (2003) mentions the negative perceptions by consumers and/or media of farmers. Verstegen (2018) calls for a concept to create a bigger added value in the market and sees this as a challenge (p. 5). Examples of these added values in the market are PlanetProof and Foqus Planet (Smits et al., 2019, p. 13). There needs to be developed a revenue model for farmers to practice a circular farming management. Smits et al. (2019, p. 10) come up with four models, but also propose a combination of these four models to create stacked rewards, to avoid risks.

Another challenge is the function of firm-specific regulations: ‘there will be no single best farming system for all circumstances. Rather it will be necessary to compose ‘optimal’ systems from a series of particular practices that relate to specific circumstances, constraints and objectives’ (Tuomisto et al., 2012, p. 318). Also, sustainability is related to the context and the local meaning needs to be included (Boogaard et al., 2011b, p. 1464). This implies introducing firm-specific regulations, to be able to value the locational factors in the food production system.

The last challenge mentioned here is the challenge of farm successors. Despite the fact that dairy farmers aged 55+ have the highest percentage with a potential farm successor on the farm (60.7%) in the agricultural sector, still almost 40% of the dairy farms didn’t find a (potential) farm successor (CBS, 2016).

According to the literature about different agricultural challenges, the following hypothesis is formulated: H3: Agricultural challenges positively influence farmers to change to a circular

(29)

25

3.8 Laws and regulations

The article of Westerink et al. (2018) describes that farmers that want to change to nature inclusive farming are challenged by laws and regulations, which makes it hard to change. Laws and regulations can withhold them to change. They feel like they have to justify for their farming management, which works demotivating. There is also a fear that what now is being appreciated with a reward, will be normal and expected in the future. The article of Šebek and Schils (2006) adds that the average dairy farmer will only change the farming management until there is a forcing law or legislation or if the economic returns are higher than the investment (p. 48).

There are multiple laws and regulations involved in managing a farm, of which the KringloopWijzer, the milk quota, the phosphate regulations and the manure law are considered the most important ones. These are the main laws and regulations that every farmer has to deal with in the Netherlands and have influenced his or her type of farming management in the last few years. These are explained shortly below.

• KringloopWijzer: A management tool developed by Wageningen University which is obligatory to fill in for dairy farmers since January 1st, 2017. It gives a firm-specific insight in the input and output of minerals and nutrients over a year on a farm (KringloopWijzer, n.d.). • Milk quota: From 1984 until April 1, 2015, farmers weren’t permitted to produce more milk

than was agreed in the European milk quota. After April 1, 2015, farmers started to produce more milk and could start to expand their number of cows. There were no limits anymore and the production of milk grew with 7% in 2016 (LTO Noord,2016).

• Phosphate regulations: The Dutch dairy sector have produced more phosphate in 2015 than is allowed according to European agreements. Therefore, since January 1, 2018 the system of phosphate regulations is introduced. As a farmer, you aren’t allowed to have more cows than you had on the reference date, which is July 2, 2015 (RVO, n.d.). This can be seen as the substitution of the milk quota.

• Manure law: There are different regulations considering the usage of manure, e.g. spreading methods and composition, because the phosphate and nitrate in the manure give risks for the environment. The phosphate regulations mentioned above is also a manure law. Another manure law is the limit of manure application. This limit makes some farmers obligated to be supplied with fertilizer and export their manure from their own cows (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). The limit we have in the Netherlands is higher than in other European countries, because we have derogatie and can divert from the limit of the European Commission (RVO, 2019). Nevertheless, farmers still have to export own manure.

(30)

26 An example of the influence of the phosphate regulations on farming management is the article from Westerink et al. (2019) about the farm Hoeve Stein. This farm wanted to change the farming management to a nature inclusive form and decided that the number of cows had to expand from 85 to 200 cows. However, due to the phosphate regulations proposed in 2018, they weren’t permitted to have more than 140 cows (p. 7) and the initial farming management had to change.

According to the literature about laws and regulations in the sector, the following hypothesis is formulated: H4: Laws and regulations force and oblige farmers to change the type of farming

(31)

27

3.9 Conceptual model

Smits et al. (2019) discuss four conditions to be considered, before a farmer will change his or her farming management: a farmer has to want it, be able to do it, be allowed to do it and eventually the farmer can be obliged to change. The two latter conditions (the allowance and obligation), which are mostly expressed in laws and regulations influence the two former conditions (wanting and the ability) (Smits et al., 2019, p. 22). These four conditions are associated with the factors discussed in the theoretical framework and that are distinguished in the conceptual model: social and economic status (if the farmer is able to change), social contacts (if the farmer is allowed to change), appreciation as a challenge in the sector (as a nudge to make the farmer want to change) and laws and regulations (if the farmer is obliged to change).

In the figure below, the conceptual model is visible. The model is derived from information of existing literature together with information from the interviews. The type of farming is determined by the four themes: social and economic status, social contacts, agricultural challenges and laws and regulations. This model is the guideline for the interviews and will contribute to answering the research questions.

(32)

28

4. Methodology

In this section, the methodology of this research is described. It starts with describing the qualitative methods, which is followed by the study setting and an exploration of the selection of the farmers which includes the sampling method. Then, the method of semi-structured interviews is explained and after that, the operationalization of the concept ‘social status’ and ‘economic status’ is expounded. The chapter ends with an explanation of the analysis in NVivo and the ethics.

4.1 Qualitative Methods

This research is based on the following research question: ‘How do circular dairy farmers compare to conventional dairy farmers and what factors influence the type of farming which is being practiced at Dutch dairy farms’? The research has the aim to find out the development of circular agriculture in the Netherlands, how these farmers differ (socially and economically) from each other and the factors influencing the management of dairy farms. The determined factors influencing the management of dairy farms in this research are, besides the social and economic status, the social contacts, the agricultural challenges and the laws and regulations. Through a qualitative approach, ‘why’ questions about this topic can be answered and an in-depth analysis about the factors influencing the dairy farming management can be made.

In order to compare circular farmers with conventional farmers and determine factors influencing their farming management, three qualitative methods were used. First, secondary research was performed: data were obtained via existing literature, policy documents, news articles and statistical numbers via Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Second, semi-structured interviews were held with a total of nine farmers and two relevant key actors. Third, surveys about the perception of the social and economic status are handed out to the farmers. Primary research (through semi-structured interviews and surveys) was needed to gather more information about individual farmers’ stories about aspects that influence their farming management and explore that in-depth.

Using the different types of data mentioned above created method triangulation, which improved the representativeness of this research (Bryman, 2012, p. 392) and combining methods obtains and creates validity and makes the research more reliable (Baarda et al., 2013, p. 75). The research has the form of a comparative research design, or as it is usually called in qualitative research a ‘multi(ple)-case study’, because the number of ‘multi(ple)-cases is more than one (circular farmers and conventional farmers). Bryman (2012, p. 710) defines a comparative design as follows: ‘A research design that

(33)

29 entails the comparison of two or more cases in order to illuminate existing theory or generate theoretical insights as a result of contrasting findings uncovered through the comparison.’ Although many of these designs are comparisons between nations (Bryman, 2012, p. 74), this research focused on the comparison between two types of farmers. An advantage of this comparative design is that it is an intensive research, which ‘enhances the researcher’s sensitivity to the factors that lie behind the operation of observed patterns within a specific context.’ (Bryman, 2012, p. 74). More specific, it enhanced the sensitivity to the factors influencing the Dutch agricultural sector and how this defined the type of farming that is practiced. A typical form of a comparative research is obtaining data via interviews, which is done in this research. An important part of the comparative design is that the comparison is carried out at the same period of time. Since the fieldwork and semi-structured interviews in this research have all been executed in April, this aspect is not a problem. This study used both inductive and deductive approaches, since existing theories about the definition of circular agriculture are used and those theories are specified to this study (‘t Hart, Boeije & Hox, 2009, p. 268).

4.2 Study setting

This study is conducted at farms throughout the Netherlands. There were two conditions under which farms were included in the research: number of cows and number of hectares. These conditions were taken into account, in order to make sure that fairly similar farms were compared, and external validity was obtained as much as possible (Bryman, 2012, p. 47). In that way, the group of respondents could be best generalized to the whole population of dairy farmers and the extremes were put out of the comparison and analysis.

Statistics Netherlands handles an average of 99 cows per farm (CBS, 2017) and the average of cows per conventional farm is 103 cows, according to Agrimatie (2019a). Most of the dairy farms in the Netherlands consist in the class of 60-100 or 100-250 cows (Van der Meulen, 2017, p. 2; Stokkermans, 2018). The border of these sectors is 100 cows. We took the border of 100 cows between the sectors proposed by Van der Meulen (2017) and Stokkermans (2018) to make the selection with. A bandwidth of 30 cows is chosen. That means that a selection was made for farmers with dairy firms with a minimum of 70 cows and a maximum of 130 cows.

For the number of hectares, the average amount of agricultural area (in hectares) has been taken into account. The average for circular farms lies between 50.1 hectares and 55.1 hectares, whereas the average for conventional farms is 74.6 hectares (De Boer et al., 2012, p. 12; Agrimatie, 2019a). Since the variability in number of hectares on farms is high, starting from a few hectares to more than 200 hectares (Kringlooplandbouw & Boerenverstand, n.d.), no selection has been made for the number of

(34)

30 hectares. However, the average number of hectares has been taken into account, outliers were excluded, and it was tried to include dairy farmers that come close to the average in the Netherlands. Farmers throughout the whole Netherlands were interviewed and no selection in region was made, in order to make the research generalizable for the whole country and not for a specific region. Possible differences in regions were elaborated for specific elements in the analysis section, e.g. being land-bound at different locations.

4.3 Selection of farmers and sampling method

The unit of analysis in this research was dairy farmers on dairy farms in the Netherlands. Two units have been distinguished: on the one hand, circular farmers were interviewed and on the other hand, conventional farmers were interviewed. The targeted sample mentioned above (farmers with 70 to 130 cows) is used to obtain a sufficient reflection of the whole group of circular farmers and conventional farmers and in this way the extremes have been taken out as respondents. Besides a targeted sample, other sampling approaches were combined in this research. Partly, convenience sampling was used: farmers were contacted via-via and were randomly chosen. A disadvantage of convenience sampling is the problem of outliers, which in this research is tried to avoid by interviewing farmers around the average of 100 cows. This latter is an example of an element of purposive sampling (criterion sampling) and therefore, purposive sampling was also used to find respondents in this research. Snowballing is also an example of purposive sampling, which is also used (Bryman, 2012, p. 416-419, Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016). Lastly, the two relevant key actors were approached through ‘expert sampling’, which is again a form of purposive sampling (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016, p. 3). These actors are the developer of the KringloopWijzer and the project leader of VKA. The interviews with the farmers were substantiated with interviews with these two relevant key actors. Farmers were obtained through snowball sampling. Further, people from the website of kringlooplandbouw have been contacted.

Representativeness was tried to enhance through triangulation: using internet sources, statistical numbers (CBS) and semi-structured interviews. Also, member checking was guaranteed, and quotes used in the research were checked by the respondents. This was done to guarantee that the quote was put in the right context with admittance of the respondent.

Development of circular agriculture (kringlooplandbouw) in the Netherlands and factors influencing (circular) dairy farming management