Cost effectiveness of nitrate leaching mitigation measures for grassland livestock systems at locations in England and Wales

Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB, UK.
Science of The Total Environment (Impact Factor: 4.1). 02/2011; 409(6):1104-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.006
Source: PubMed


As much as 60% of the nitrate in water in England is thought to derive from agriculture. Legislation aims to improve water quality by limiting nitrate concentration in surface and groundwaters to 50 mg l(-1). The UK Government responded to the requirements of the EC Nitrate Directive by delineating Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) to cover 55% of England in 2002 and increased it to 70% in 2009. In this study we assessed the cost-effectiveness of measures for implementation in livestock systems to mitigate nitrate leaching in the UK. These estimates were prepared for a range of hypothetical farms representative of typical dairy, beef and sheep farms at different locations in England and Wales and for a list of mitigation measures identified to reduce leaching. The NGAUGE and NFixCycle models were used to estimate leaching from these systems. The costs of implementation of the mitigation measures were also assessed in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these measures. In general, the most effective measures to reduce leaching for all systems were the ones that involved a reduction in stocking rates and grazing time, followed by those involving improvements in fertiliser and crop management. Only in the case of the dairy system was effectiveness affected by location of the farm. The costs for implementation in the sheep system were relatively low compared with beef and dairy systems. Implementation of some of the measures with high cost-effectiveness would need to be incentivised financially or with legislation due to the high costs involved.

Download full-text


Available from: Anita Shepherd, Oct 20, 2014
12 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Within the framework of the nitrate directive, member states have the opportunity to apply for derogation, i.e. increasing fertilisation standards under certain conditions. Several EU regions have utilised this opportunity, but each in a different way, resulting in six very different derogation policies within the EU in 2009. This paper focuses on the differences between the policies applied and makes an assessment with regard to the impact of these differences on the application rate for derogation, the manure surplus and the cost of allocating manure. Based on the MP-MAS model described by Van der Straeten et al. (2010) the different scenarios are applied on a single case area (Flanders) and the economic effects have been simulated. Results show considerable differences between the policy alternatives, leading to the conclusion that member states not only have to focus on whether or not to allow derogation, but also on the actual details of the derogation policy. Granting derogation at parcel level (plot of land), instead of farm level, increases the potential effect of derogation; the level of increase in fertilisation standards under derogation determines the application rate for derogation: a higher increase leads to a higher application rate.
    Science of The Total Environment 02/2012; 421-422:94-101. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.019 · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Urinations of ruminants on grazed pastures increase the risk of nitrate leaching. The study investigated the effect of reducing the length of the grazing season on nitrate leaching from a coarse sandy, irrigated soil during 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. In both years, precipitation was above the long-term mean. The experiment was initiated in a 4-yr-old grass-clover sward in south Denmark. Three treatments were as follows grazing only (G), spring cut followed by grazing (CG) and both spring and autumn cuts with summer grazing (CGC). Nitrate leaching was calculated by extracting water isolates from 80 cm depth using ceramic suction cups. Because of considerable variation in measured nitrate concentrations, the 32 installed suction cups per treatment were insufficient to reveal differences between treatments. However, weighted nitrate leaching estimations for G, CG and CGC showed estimated mean nitrate N concentrations of 23, 19 and 13 mg/L for an estimated proportion area occupied by urine patches of 0.33, 0.26 and 0.16, respectively. Thus, N concentrations in G and CG exceeded the EU limit of 11.3 mg N/L. Under the prevailing conditions, the time of urination did not appear important. The estimated background leaching calculated from suction cups presumably not situated under urine patches resulted in mean nitrate N concentrations of 2.6 mg/L.
    Soil Use and Management 12/2012; 28(4). DOI:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00446.x · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is world-wide concern for the contribution of dairy farming to global warming. However, there is still a need to improve the quantification of the C-footprint of dairy farming systems under different production systems and locations since most of the studies (e.g. at farm-scale or using LCA) have been carried out using too simplistic and generalised approaches. A modelling approach integrating existing and new sub-models has been developed and used to simulate the C and N flows and to predict the GHG burden of milk production (from the cradle to the farm gate) from 17 commercial confinement dairy farms in the Basque Country (northern Spain). We studied the relationship between their GHG emissions, and their management and economic performance. Additionally, we explored some of the effects on the GHG results of the modelling methodology choice. The GHG burden values resulting from this study (0.84-2.07kg CO2-eqkg(-l) milk ECM), although variable, were within the range of values of existing studies. It was evidenced, however, that the methodology choice used for prediction had a large effect on the results. Methane from the rumen and manures, and N2O emissions from soils comprised most of the GHG emissions for milk production. Diet was the strongest factor explaining differences in GHG emissions from milk production. Moreover, the proportion of feed from the total cattle diet that could have directly been used to feed humans (e.g. cereals) was a good indicator to predict the C-footprint of milk. Not only were some other indicators, such as those in relation with farm N use efficiency, good proxies to estimate GHG emissions per ha or per kg milk ECM (C-footprint of milk) but they were also positively linked with farm economic performance.
    Science of The Total Environment 04/2013; 465. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.064 · 4.10 Impact Factor
Show more