APPENDIX 6i

AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F011

1 INTRODUCTION

One of the primary objectives of the Three Rivers Project was to develop strategies to manage

nutrient inputs to surface water, both from point sources and from diffuse sources. Agriculture, as a

major source of diffuse nutrient loss to surface water has been identified as a significant contributor of

nutrients to surface water in the Three Rivers Project catchments. The core of the strategies to

manage the contributions from the agricultural sector is the development and implementation of Best

Farm Management Planning procedures in catchments where agriculture has a negative impact on

water quality. These procedures were developed and implemented in the projects agricultural pilot

catchments.

The Three Rivers Project Best Farm Management Practices (BFMP) aim at optimising the use of

nutrients on a farm, thereby providing economic benefit to the farmers and at the same time reducing

the potential for nutrient losses to surface and groundwater systems. The BFMP aims to compliment

existing codes of practices and schemes in Ireland, including the “Code of Good Agricultural Practice

to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates (1996)”.

Figure 1. BFMP as envisaged by the Three Rivers Project

The procedure for the development of a BFMP is outlined above in Figure 1. Once a farmer has

expressed an interest in participating in the project, the process as outlined above is initiated.

Development of Best FarmManagement Plan

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F012

The Purpose of this manual is to present the methods adopted by the Three Rivers Project for the

preparation of a Best Farm Management Plan. Each part of the process above is outlined and

described to a degree that will allow the planner to carry out the procedure fully.

2 INITIAL SURVEY

The first step of the data collection process is the initial survey and the aim of the initial survey is to

collect all relevant general information in regard to farming activities. The land farmed is outlined on a

6 inch/ 25 inch scale. All general farm details are collected including enterprise type, crop type, soil

type, details of management, such as housing periods, fertiliser usage, stocking rates, liming and a

description of each field in terms of its usage, fertiliser and slurry applications. All of this data is

entered onto a standard form (See Figure 2 & Figure 3).

The initial survey forms are presented below in Figure 2 & 3. The general farm details are filled into

the form, as outlined in Figure 2.

Field by field details are filled into form (Figure 3 below) as follows:

For GRASSLAND FIELDS

1. Is land owned or rented?. Is land inside catchment?

2. What is the field used for?- Silage/hay/Drystock grazing/ Dairy grazing etc.(This year and next)

3. How long since land has been re-seeded? Are there any plans for re seeding?

4. Organic fertiliser application: Type, rate & time? (This year and next)

5. Chemical fertiliser application: Type, rate & time? (This year and next)

6. Subsurface & Natural Drainage? Soil Types?

7. Good/bad permanent grass? High Clover fields? Italian Ryegrass?

For TILLAGE FIELDS

A) Field is in tillage for less than 5 years and was in grassland for morethan 5 years beforehand?

1. Type of Crop? (This year and next)

2. Management of grassland before tillage: (use, organic & inorganic fertiliserused etc )

3. Date of sowing?

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F013

4. Date of Harvest?

5. Management before & after harvest?

6. Normal yield on field?

7. Organic fertiliser application: type, rate & time. (This year & next).

8. Chemical fertiliser application: type, rate & time. (This year & next).

9. Subsurface and natural drainage? Soil types?

OR

B) Continuous Tillage. Is field in Tillage for more than 5 years?

1. Type of Crop? (This year and next)

2. Management of 1 to 4 year grassland ( grazed/cut, chemical/organic N)?Italian Ryegrass?

3. If swedes, removed or grazed in field?

4. Date of sowing?

5. Date of Harvest?

6. Management before & after harvest?

7. Normal yield on field?

8. Organic fertiliser application: type, rate & time. (This year & next).

9. Chemical fertiliser application: type, rate & time. (This year & next).

10. Subsurface and natural drainage? Soil types?

As well as collecting all relevant information, the farm is also mapped at this stage with the assistance

of the farmer. All fields are numbered and are given “common names” where used. For the purpose of

mapping 6 inch maps are preferable, but where they are not available 25 inch maps are adequate.

Thus, the basic information required to design a detailed farm survey and soil-sampling programme

has been collected.

TIP: Always pre-arrange an initial survey meeting with a farmer giving sufficient time to go through all

questions properly. Gathering information fully on the initial visit will save time for the planner & the

farmer.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F014

Date

Name

Address

Phone (Important to get contact number as well as home number)

Ref. No.

1. Is a NMP available maybe as a part of REPS/Dairy Hygiene Scheme/CFP/Increases

capital allowance for investment in farm pollution control measures (Finance Act)?

2. Any Previous soil test results available? : (Any previous soil test results need to be

noted and the date that they were taken on needs to be recorded)

3. Existing agricultural adviser? (or chosen adviser in cases where he has no advisor or

where is current advisor is not acceptable I.e. in Bye law areas)

4. Map of owned and rented land: Map fields,. (Add names of fields if commonly

used).

5. Area farmed overall?

Conacerage?

Is all land in catchment? (Need area of land in catchment only)

6. Liming in last two years? (When and Where)

7. Where is dirty water silage effluent spread?

Figure 2 - Initial Survey Sheet

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F015

8. Method of application slurry/dirty water/silage effluent? (Own machine or

contractor?)

9. Overall Numbers and type of livestock? (Supply all relevant information pertaining to

“current livestock”. It is important to find out when he sells stock off and buys new stock in

etc. Other necessary information includes his calving period, Lactation period etc.

10. Concentrates/minerals (P containing) fed indoors and outdoors? Type and amount.

11. Date of housing/turn out and animals that are housed.

12. Milk/meat/crop production?

Figure 2 - Initial Survey Sheet (Continued)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

036

F6

Fie

ld

no

.

Fie

ld n

ame

Det

ails

Fig

ure

3 -

In

itia

l S

urv

ey S

hee

t -

fiel

d d

etai

ls

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F017

3 FARMYARD ASSESSMENT

A detailed survey is carried out on all farmyards. This survey involves measuring and mapping the

yard very accurately with all farmyard “ elements” (buildings, Tanks, yards and other structures)

mapped and measured. These maps are later digitised. All Information on each element is noted on a

standard form (See Figures 4a-e). Information is collected on the use, size and general detail of each

element.

Each element is then numbered. It is recommended that elements are numbered in a standardised

manner depending on the type of element, such as:

Buildings 100-200

Tanks/Pits 200-300

Yards 300-400

Information on individual elements are collected and compiled as follows. (See Figure 4b to 4e)

3.1 SHEDS: (FIGURE 4B & FIGURE 4E)

Each Shed is listed and its use is recorded. In the case of “Animal housing”, the number of animals,

the time they spend in the shed, the type of waste they produce (fym or slurry) is recorded. In sheds

where bedding is used, an estimate of “Straw” usage is taken. (see Figure 4b)

The condition of each building is also recorded with special reference made to the condition of

guttering etc. The tanks that serve each building are also noted, such as

• Slurry storage tanks,

• Water tanks where roof water is collected.

• Dungsteads where FYM is stored.

3.2 TANKS: (FIGURE 4C)

Tanks are measured, and their capacity calculated. The type of waste stored is noted. The quantity of

waste collected is noted where possible. The nutrient content of slurry is also measured where

possible (See Figure 4c).

An attempt to ascertain how much water is entering tanks is also made, i.e. the contributing yards,

roves, silage pits etc (and their area) is noted. The quantity of water going to a tank can be estimated

from this information. Finally the location of the “spreading area” for slurry/fym or soiled water is

recorded.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F018

3.3 PITS: (FIGURE 4A) (FIGURE 4C) (FIGURE 4E)

Silage pits are examined and the “effluent storage facilities” are noted (See Figure 4c). The

dimensions of the Silage pit are recorded (See Figure 4e). Water running off a silage slab is taken into

account, along with the destination of the water. The condition of silage pit is recorded. and is noted

whether the silage pit is covered with farmyard manure\tyres\sandbags. (See Figure 4a,)

3.4 YARDS: (FIGURE 4D)

The yards are measured and the yard areas are calculated. It is noted whether a yard is “soiled” or

“clean” The collecting “storage facility” for clean or soiled water is recorded and an estimate is made of

the proportion of water that goes to each storage facility. The type of animals using the yard and the

frequency of cleaning on the yard are accounted for.

3.5 OTHER ASPECTS OF YARDS:

Dungheaps are examined to determine whether there is a risk of nutrient loss from them (Figure 4c).

Any possible “nutrient loss” from the yard is accounted for. Ie A dirty yard sloping towards a drain or

field (Figure 4d).

TIP: Get a general idea of farmyard layout before entering elements onto a map. Draw a

general yard background first and then enter the elements.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F019

DATENAMEADDRESS

PHONERef. No.

1. Weather conditions on day of visit:

2. No. and location of farmyards:

3. Area of open concrete/other surfaces to which animals have access for each yard?

4. Description of houses and other facilities (forms and maps). Clearly identify

dirty/clean yards etc. on map.

(Check whether earlier collected information on application methods, areas, rates,

frequencies etc. of slurry, solid manure’s, dirty water and silage effluent is correct.)

5. Winter-feed: Concentrates/Minerals, in the case of silage: grass leafy/grass

stemmy, baled/pit, arable silage (specify type), catch crop (specify type), sugar

beet tops, maize, whole fodder beet. How much of which type of feed is given to

which animals during the housing period?

6. Dry periods for dairy cows: Indicate dates & duration.

Figure 4a - Farmyard Assessment Form

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0110

7. Is the silage pit covered with farmyard manure?.

8. Outwintering of animals: Types and numbers of animals outwintered and on which

fields?.

9. Import/export of slurry/FYM or others?

10. Use of pesticides and sheep dips. Types, frequency.

11. Large scale use of detergents and disinfectants (purpose, quantities, type)?

Figure 4a - Farmyard Assessment Form (continued)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0111

12. Method of disposal of left over/ spent pesticide/sheep dip, waste oil, empty

containers, fertiliser bags, silage wrapping, etc.

13. Location of Well(s).

Figure 4a - Farmyard Assessment Form (continued)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

036

Rev

F01

12

AN

IMA

L H

OU

SE

SN

ame

of

Far

mya

rd:

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL

MG

utte

rsD

ownp

ipes

Re

f. n

o.

hous

eT

ype

of h

ouse

and

flo

or

Yea

rb

uilt

Re

f. n

o.

ass

oc.

yard

Re

f. n

o.

ass

oc.

excr

.st

ore

Ext

er.

pla

na

rea

m2

Bed

ding

: T

ype

and

amou

nt

use

dC

on

di-

tion

Dra

in t

oC

on

di-

tion

Dra

into

Typ

es (

incl

. ag

e) o

f an

imal

s ho

used

Nos

. for

ea

chty

pe

Hou

sing

peri

od f

or

each

typ

e

Com

men

ts/o

bser

vatio

ns

BG

H/I

M

Dis

tingu

ish

area

s w

ith

• S

ingl

e pl

aces

(cu

bicl

es,

stal

ls,

byre

, et

c.)

for

anim

als

and

loos

eho

usin

g ar

eas

• S

latte

d an

d so

lid fl

oor

area

s•

Typ

es o

f sol

id fl

oor:

ear

th, h

ardc

ore,

con

cret

e

• S

traw

(ba

led/

chop

ped/

loos

e)•

New

spap

er (

shre

dded

/bal

ed)

• S

awdu

st (

moi

st/d

ry)

• P

eat:

spha

gnum

/ fe

n (lo

osed

/bal

ed)

• W

ood

shav

ings

• O

ther

(sp

ecify

)

Con

ditio

n:•

Goo

d•

Poo

r•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

Dra

ins

to:

• T

ank

(ref

. no

.)•

Yar

d (r

ef.

no.

• O

ther

(sp

ecify

)

• G

ener

al c

omm

ents

on

build

ing,

nec

essa

ry im

prov

emen

ts,

is t

he r

oof

wat

er

dive

rted

and

leav

es th

e fa

rm a

s cl

ean

wat

er, e

tc.

• N

ote

risks

of p

ollu

tion,

e.g

. unc

olle

cted

see

page

from

str

aw b

edde

d ar

eas.

Fig

ure

4b

- F

arm

yard

Ass

essm

ent

Fo

rm -

An

imal

ho

use

s

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

036

Rev

F01

13

MA

NU

RE

/SL

UR

RY

/SO

ILE

D W

AT

ER

/EF

FL

UE

NT

ST

OR

AG

EN

ame

of

Far

mya

rd:

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

Dim

ensi

ons

Ref

.no

.T

ype

and

cons

truc

tion

mat

eria

l

Yea

rbu

iltT

ype

of

excr

eta/

efflu

ent

stor

ed

Ref

. no

s. o

f as

soci

ated

hous

es/y

ards

/faci

lity

or ty

pes

of a

nim

als

asso

ciat

ed w

ith it

Leng

thm

Wid

thm

Dep

thm

Cap

acity

m3

Vol

ume

prod

uced

durin

gho

usin

g

Loca

tion

of

spre

adin

g (f

ield

no

s.)

Obs

erva

tions

/com

men

ts

BD

H

• U

ncov

ered

tank

bet

wee

n 1.

7 an

d 2.

75 m

dee

p•

Slu

rry

• D

epth

of

e.g.

slu

rry

at b

egin

ning

of

hous

ing

perio

d

• U

ncov

ered

tan

k le

ss th

an 1

.7 m

dee

p•

FY

M•

Dep

th o

f e.g

. slu

rry

at th

e en

d of

hou

sing

per

iod

• U

ncov

ered

tank

mor

e th

an 2

.75

m d

eep

• S

oile

d w

ater

• D

epth

(or

vol

ume)

of s

lurr

y re

mov

ed d

urin

g ho

usin

g pe

riods

(ho

w m

any

times

)

• S

epar

ate

cove

red

tank

• S

ilage

effl

uent

• E

.g. s

oile

d w

ater

: F

requ

ency

of s

prea

ding

/app

roxi

mat

e qu

antit

ies

• T

ank

in r

oofe

d sl

atte

d sh

ed•

Dai

ry w

ashi

ng

• T

ank

for

shee

p sl

urry

in r

oofe

d sl

atte

d sh

ed•

Veg

etab

le w

ashi

ng

• D

ungs

tead

(co

vere

d/un

cove

red)

• C

ombi

natio

n

• M

anur

e pi

t fo

r F

YM

(co

vere

d/un

cove

red)

• O

ther

(sp

ecify

)

• F

YM

hea

p (c

over

ed/u

ncov

ered

): lo

catio

n

• La

goon

(lin

ed/u

nlin

ed)

Fig

ure

4c

- F

arm

yard

Ass

essm

ent

Fo

rm-

Sto

rag

e F

acil

itie

s

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:25

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

036

Rev

F01

14

YA

RD

SN

ame

of

Far

mya

rd:

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KD

rain

age

Ref

.no

. ya

rdT

ype

Typ

e of

flo

or

Yea

r bu

iltR

ef.

no.

of a

ssoc

. ho

use

or

excr

./ef

fl. s

tore

or

oth

er

faci

lity

Sur

face

are

a m

2U

se a

nd a

nim

als

as

soci

ated

with

yar

dD

rain

age

wat

er:

dirt

y w

ater

se

para

ted

from

cle

an

wat

er?

Cle

anin

g: fr

eque

ncy

and

proc

edur

eT

ype

Wh

ere

to?

Com

men

ts/o

bser

vatio

ns

BC

GH

IJ

Des

crib

e:•

Cle

an y

ard

cove

red/

unco

vere

d•

Dirt

y ya

rd c

over

ed/u

ncov

ered

• P

oten

tially

cle

an y

ard

cove

red/

unco

vere

d

• S

latte

d an

d so

lid fl

oor

area

s•

Typ

es o

f sol

id fl

oor:

ear

th,

hard

core

, co

ncre

te

• C

olle

ctin

g ya

rd•

Hol

ding

yar

d•

Oth

ers

(spe

cify

)

E.g

.•

Sep

arat

ion

of d

irty

and

clea

n (e

.g.

roof

wat

er)

wat

er?

• D

irty

yard

res

tric

ted

by e

.g.

barr

ier?

• W

ashe

d•

Scr

aped

• S

carp

ed a

nd

was

hed

• S

wep

t•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

Typ

e:•

Ove

rland

flo

w•

Ope

n ch

anne

l•

Alo

ng k

erb

• O

ther

(sp

ecify

)W

here

to?

• T

ank

ref.

no.

• D

itch

• F

ield

ref

. no

.•

Soa

kway

s•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

Fig

ure

4d

- F

arm

yard

Ass

essm

ent

Fo

rm Y

ard

s

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

036

Rev

F01

15

OT

HE

R F

AC

ILIT

IES

Nam

e o

f F

arm

yard

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

K

For

dai

ryG

utte

rsD

ownp

ipes

Re

f. n

o.

oth

er

faci

lity

Typ

e of

oth

er

faci

lity

Re

f. n

o.

ass

oc.

an

ima

lho

use/

yard

/ex

cr.

or e

ffl.

sto

re

Yea

rb

uilt

Typ

e of

w

all i

f si

lage

pit

Typ

e of

flo

or

Ext

erna

lp

lan

are

a

m2

No.

milk

ing

units

Cle

anin

gop

erat

ion

Fre

quen

cyof

cle

anin

g p

er

oper

atio

n

Con

ditio

nD

rain

to

Co

nd

itio

nD

rain

to

Com

men

ts/o

bser

vati

on

s

• •

• •

Sila

ge p

it (O

pen/

Clo

sed;

sel

f-fe

d/ea

sy-f

ed;

fall

of s

ilage

cov

er a

way

from

face

/fall

of s

ilage

cov

er to

war

ds fa

ce)

• M

ilkin

g pa

rlour

• M

ilk c

oole

r un

it•

Sto

rage

: ar

ea b

aled

sila

ge,

conc

entr

ates

, ot

her

feed

• S

tora

ge a

rea:

she

ep d

ip, p

estic

ides

, oil/

fuel

, che

mic

al fe

rtili

sers

• H

ay b

arn

• S

heep

dip

ping

fac

ility

: ro

ofed

/unr

oofe

d, m

obile

/sta

tiona

ry,

race

, sc

reen

on

rac

e, s

plas

h bo

ard,

dra

inin

g pe

n •

Han

dlin

g pe

ns•

Mus

hroo

m h

ouse

• V

eget

able

was

hing

pre

mis

es

• C

oncr

ete

• E

arth

ba

nk:

lined

/unl

ined

• B

lock

wor

k•

Non

e•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

• S

latte

d/so

lid fl

oor

• S

olid

floo

r: c

oncr

ete,

ear

th, h

ardc

ore

Cle

anin

g op

erat

ions

:•

Cle

anin

g of

m

ilkin

gm

achi

ne•

Cle

anin

g of

bul

k ta

nk•

Cle

anin

g of

dai

ry•

Udd

er w

ashi

ng•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

Con

dito

n:•

Goo

d•

Poo

r•

Oth

er (

spec

ify)

Dra

ins

to:

• T

ank

(ref

. no

.)•

Yar

d (r

ef.

no.)

• O

ther

(sp

ecify

)

Fig

ure

4e

- F

arm

ya

rd A

ss

es

sm

en

t F

orm

- O

the

r F

ac

ilit

ies.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0116

4 SOIL NUTRIENT TESTING

Soil sampling is undertaken in order to assess the nutrient content of the soil on a farm. Due to the

fact that high soil P has been linked to the loss of nutrients from soil to water it becomes necessary to

introduce management strategies where soil P levels are high.

It is necessary to develop a “soil sampling protocol” for each farm initially. This involves outlining, on a

map, where soil samples are to be taken from and preparing a record sheet with details of fields from

where samples are to be taken before the sampler goes out to the farm. (Based on initial survey).

The soil sampler takes samples from each soil sample area based on the soil protocols. The optimal

area for a soil sample to be taken from was 4ha, however in some cases where the area was judged

to be fairly “homogeneous” this area was increased up to a maximum of 6ha. Samples are taken

based on the method outlined in the Code of Practice for Soil Sampling.(Teagasc, 1996). Do not

sample for P or K for 4-6 months after the last fertiliser application. Once samples are collected they

are sent away for analysis for N, P,K, Lime & pH. Following analysis of samples results should be

tabulated and mapped for each farm.

5 HYDROLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Hydrological Risk Assessment for the application of manure’s and fertilisers.

This is a methodology for field-by-field assessment of the risk of rapid nutrient loss to watercourses. It

has been developed by the Three Rivers Project in association with the Research & Advisory section

of Teagasc. to augment the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by

Nitrates by advising on the appropriate timing of manure and fertiliser applications according to

hydrological criteria and incorporates a procedure for minimising the impact of out-of-season manure

applications. The hydrological risk assessment process involves defining the “drainage class” of the

predominant soil in each field. Drainage information is available as part of the Soil Survey of Ireland.

Detailed county based soil survey maps are available for a number of counties. Those completed

include Wexford, Carlow, Kildare, Laois, Meath, Westmeath, Clare, Limerick, Leitrim, Donegal and

Tipperary (NR). Others which are partially complete include: Cork (West Cork complete only), West

Mayo (Mapped/No report), Offaly (surveyed/not published) and Waterford (surveyed/not published).

There are six drainage classes and they are Excessive, Well, Moderate, Imperfect, Poor and Very

Poor. These can be ranked as having low, medium or high risk of overland flow as defined in Figure 5

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0117

Figure 5 Relationship between “Drainage Class” and the “Hydrological RiskAssessment” classes.

Hydrological Risk Drainage Class

Green (Low) Well, Moderate

Yellow (Moderate) Imperfect

Red (High) Poor, Very Poor, Excessive.

There are a number of steps in defining the “Classification” of a field (or management unit).

1. Obtain a farm map and identify the soil type and drainage class for each field on thefarm. Exclusions zones are delineated and colour coded white.

2. Identify wet or waterlogged areas using a visual survey (e.g. position on thelandscape, presence of water tolerant vegetation, etc) and discussion with the farmer. These areas are coloured red (high risk).

3. All other fields are colour coded according to their drainage class (from soil surveymap) as either green, yellow or red, as identified in Figure 5.

4. Where doubt exists in regard to drainage class, and where considered necessary(e.g. good hydrological connection of field to watercourse), then an onsiteexamination of the soil by augering to a depth of 60cm should by carried out. Anymottling (a mixture of grey and reddish colours in the profile) of the soil above 50 cm indicates recent water table fluctuations in this layer and a risk of overland flow.Mottling between 25 & 50cm indicates a medium risk (yellow). Mottling above 25 cm indicates high risk (red)

An assessment of “hydrological connection” should also be carried out where all surface drains and

streams/rivers are mapped. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there are any sub –surface

drains by asking the farmer.

The three hydrological risk classes are defined as follows:

High Risk (Red):

These soils can be divided into two groups.

1) Wet waterlogged fields. These areas are waterlogged for most of the year. They generally have

water tolerant vegetation present such as Rushes. They have very poor drainage and are

classified as high risk in terms of potential for overland flow

2) Excessively drained soils. These are areas that are excessively well drained and they are

considered to be high risk in terms of potential for rapid sub surface flow.

Manures & Fertilisers should only be applied to these areas between May1st & September 30th.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0118

Moderate Risk (Yellow):

These soils have imperfect drainage. They are described as having a medium risk of overland flow &

nutrient losses to water and are coded yellow. Manure applications to these areas should only occur

within the period May to the end of September or where extended periods of dry weather allows one

application may be spread in April.

Low Risk (Green):

These soils are described as moderately or well-drained soils. They are classed as having a low risk of

overland flow and therefore this land is the most suitable for spreading and should be spread on first.

The period of application on these areas is Jan 15 to end Sept, allowing for restrictions within the

code.

There may be a number of different areas of differing hydrological risk in one field. If the areas of

differing of hydrological risk are significant in size, then it may be necessary to divide the field into a

number of management units, each management unit representing a different hydrological risk area.

However if there are small areas of different hydrological risk, I.e. the corner of a field, then it is not

practical to divide the field into different management units. Management units are discussed further in

Section 6.1.

Figure 6 Sample Risk Assessment Map

Once the process of data collection is completed the development of the BFMP is initiated.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0119

6 BFMP CALCULATIONS.

At this point each field is assessed and may be divided into sub-field size units called “management

units” where necessary. A management unit may consist of one field or of “sub field units”.

Management units are delineated based on two criteria

1) Differing management

2) Differing hydrological risk.

Once all the data has been collected, the data is collated and necessary calculations are carried out.

The use of the farms module of Catchment Envisage at this stage allows data to be entered into

standardised forms. The use of Catchment Enviage enhances the “well structured” approach of the

BFMP method by requiring all data to be treated in the same manner. Thus any “subjectivity” in

relation to the data management is removed. Catchment Envisage also carries out all the major

calculations required for the development of a BFMP. This standardised calculation procedure also

reduces the risk of error and decreases differences that may occur between different

operators/planners.

The calculations carried out can be divided into two categories

a) Farmyard calculations

b) Nutrient application calculations

6.1 FARMYARD CALCULATIONS

The Farmyard calculations are those calculations carried out to ascertain whether there is adequate

storage on the yard for slurry/FYM or water. All calculations are based on standard Teagasc “Co-

efficients” and methods. The “farmyard calculations” lead us to a “storage deficit\surplus for each tank

and for a farmyard as a whole. The results are presented in tabular form on the BFMP output sheet

(Figure 7)

Each BFMP produced has two storage deficit figures produced.

1) Storage Deficit for 16 weeks period.

2) Storage Deficit for housing period allowing for spreading of “Manure” on “green” hydrologically

safe areas, as discussed earlier in Section 5.1.

A list of the “farmyard calculations” carried out are presented below. They are presented in the order

that they are carried out for the “Manure (Liquid & Solid) storage table” in the BFMP output sheet.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Thr

ee R

iver

s P

roje

ctF

inal

Rep

ort

MC

OS

/192

/001

/002

/Rp0

0366

Rev

F01

20

Fig

ure

7

Man

ure

(L

iqu

id &

So

lid

) S

tora

ge

fro

m O

utp

ut

Sh

eet

Tan

kN

o.D

escr

iptio

nH

ousi

ng p

erio

dw

eeks

Slu

rry

prod

uced

in

hou

sed

perio

d.m

3

FY

MP

rod

M3

Rai

nwat

er/

Soi

led

wat

er in

hous

ed p

erio

dm

3

Tot

als

Tot

al p

rodu

ced

per

wee

k in

hou

sed

perio

dm

3

Tot

alC

apac

ity r

eq. m

3

for

a m

inim

um o

f 16

wee

ks

Exi

stin

gta

nk v

ol.

m3

Cur

rent

def

icit

M3

Per

mis

sibl

eap

plic

atio

n to

gr

een

area

s ou

tsid

e S

MD

pe

riod

m3

Sto

rage

cap

acity

re

quire

d al

low

ing

for

perm

issi

ble

appl

icat

ion

m3

Sto

rage

def

icit

allo

win

g fo

r pe

rmis

sibl

eap

plic

atio

nM

3

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0121

1. Slurry produced in housed period (m3)

No. of weeks housed x slurry production coefficient.

The slurry production coefficient is dependent on the type of animals present and on the type of tank

in question. These figures are derived from the “Code of good agricultural practice to protect waters

from pollution by nitrates” (DOE,1996)

2. FYM produced in housing period.

No. of weeks housed x FYM production coefficient.

The FYM production coefficient is dependent on the type of animals present. These figures are

derived from the Code of good agricultural practice to protect waters from pollution by nitrates

(DOE,1996)

3. Rainwater/ Soiled water produced.

There are a number of sources of water to tanks on a farmyard

a) Dairy washings - Figures derived from Code of good agricultural practice to

protect waters from pollution by nitrates (DOE,1996)

b) Rainwater generated runoff

Area of contributing surface x rainfall for relevant period.

The runoff from a farmyard can come off any surface such as a yard or roof. (Thus it is important that

all this information is collected as part of the initial survey)

4. Totals (produced during housing period)

FYM (Housing period)+Slurry (Housing Period)+Water (Housing Period)

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0122

5. Total produced per week in housing period.

FYM (Housing period)+Slurry (Housing Period)+Water (Housing Period)No. of Weeks housed

6. Total capacity required for 16 weeks.

FYM (16 week period)+Slurry (16 week Period)+Water (week Period)

The fym, slurry and soiled water produced for 16 weeks are calculated in the same way as for the

housing period above.

7. Existing tank volumes

Length x Width x Depth

8. Current Deficit. (16 week deficit)

{Slurry (16 weeks) + FYM (16 weeks) + Water (16 weeks)} – Tank Capacity

9. Permissible application to green area.

30m3 x Area “green” land.

10. Storage capacity required allowing for permissible application (to green area)

Total quantity Produced (housing period) – Permissible application to green

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0123

11. Storage deficit allowing for permissible applications (to green area)

Storage capacity required allowing for permissible application – Current Capacity

6.2 NUTRIENT APPLICATION CALCULATIONS

These calculations relate to the applications of nutrients to the farm. The calculations here differ

somewhat from standard methods, primarily in the detailed field by field approach adopted by the

Three Rivers Project. Each BFMP, involves detailed field-by-field assessment, though current common

practice frequently omits the requisite level of detail. Because agriculturally small amounts of nutrients

can have substantial impacts on water quality, Nutrient Management Plans need to be very precise to

result in environmental benefits. The use of each field, therefore, needs to be determined as

accurately as possible to ascertain the correct amount of nutrients to be applied. This is a

straightforward process in the case of arable land but can be challenging in connection with livestock

enterprises.

Teagasc advice for pasture specifies nitrogen and phosphorus application rates according to stocking

rate, and, additionally, according to production system (dairy/dry stock) in the case of phosphorus.

The stocking rate is calculated by dividing the number of grazing animals on the farm by the area used

for grazing and forage (e.g. hay and silage). The nutrient advice is therefore based on the assumption

that the land on a livestock farm is of even stock carrying capacity, that it is all used to its full potential

and that it is used for either dairy or dry stock but not both. However in practice this is not the case.

Teagasc (Johnstown Castle) have suggested a new refined approach, which is being implemented for

the first time by the Three Rivers Project at a field-by-field level in three Agricultural Pilot Study Areas.

This method allows us to adjust the nutrients being applied to fields on the basis of

a) Productivity

b) Livestock type on mixed farms.

Productivity

The farmer assesses each field in terms of productivity. The farmer is asked to nominate his best field.

This field is given a productivity of 100%, and all the other fields on the farm are rated accordingly.

The percentage productivity is then used to adjust the stocking rate (sr). This has the effect of

reducing the stocking rate in accordance to the relative usage of each field. Thus, the nutrient

recommendations will then be reduced relative to the % productivity.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0124

It is important that the overall sr used is calculated using the “adjusted area”, (which is the sum of the

area of all fields after the area of each field has been adjusted by the % productivity.). This means that

the overall stocking rate for the whole farm will be slightly higher than if it was calculated by the normal

method, but it will be reduced on a field by field basis depending on the productivity of the field. Thus,

the field with 100% productivity will have a higher sr and hence nutrient application recommendation

than it would under normal procedures but a low productivity field will have lower sr and hence lower

recommendations. (See Figure 8)

Figure 8 - Relative N application rates on different fields as determined by T.R.P method andTeagasc method.

Livestock type on mixed farms.

There are differing phosphorus applications required for fields grazed by Dairy or grazed by Dry

livestock. The method adopted here refines the nutrients applied to each field for mixed enterprise

farms. The stocking rate is adjusted depending on the area of the farm which is “used” by each

enterprise. Thus the number of dairy cows is divided by the area occupied by dairy cows to get a

stocking rate (sr) for the dairy portion of the farm. This sr is then used to ascertain the nutrient

requirements for each field on the dairy grazing portion of the farm. The same calculation is true for

the Dry enterprise. These calculations can be quite complex, because the “area” referred to, include

grazing area and forage (Silage/Hay). Thus where “forage areas and/or grazing areas are mixed, it is

necessary to calculate the area occupied by each “enterprise” by proportioning the area based on

livestock units.

Both of the above calculations result in refined nutrient applications to every field. Thus because the

nutrient applications are “field specific” the risk of nutrient loss is reduced, whilst the agronomic

response is maximised.

N app. rates to m.u's on small mixed farm.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

M.U.

N (

kg/h

a)

Teagasc

T.R.P

Grazing

100 %Grazing

75%

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0125

6.3 NMP CALCULATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND COMMENTS

This section covers the calculations carried out in the course of development of a NMP.

6.3.1 Areas

• Available area = area minus not farmed features

• Adjusted area = percentage of available area. The percentage reflects the production obtained

from the area. The field of maximum production on a farm is 100%. Percentages need to be

known in reference to the particular farm you are working with only – not across farms. Farmers

are our main source of information for productivity adjustments. If the info cannot be obtained

from a farmer, use the Hydrological Risk Assessment as a crude way of differentiating between

very good and very bad land. The standard comment ‘Juncus very abundant’ indicates low

productivity land.

• Area used for spreading of manures = available area minus buffer strips according to the Code.

• Area used for spreading of chemical fertilisers = available area minus buffer strips according to

the Code.

6.3.2 Stocking Rate Calculations

• Stocking rates are used to calculate the P maintenance application rates and N application rates

for grazing areas. The number of animals divided by the relevant area is therefore the number of

animals grazing during the summer. However, the forage area is allocated according to the

number of animals in each production system during winter feeding time. This is necessary

because beef cattle are often sold before housing and therefore do not need winter feed.

Assigning forage area to animals which will no longer be there in winter will lead to incorrect

areas and therefore wrong stocking rates assigned to each production system.

• The stocking rates per production system are made out based on adjusted areas.

• If a farmer grows forage crops without aftermath ‘grazing’ (most crops except silage 1 and 2 cuts

and hay), the forage only area and silage/hay areas need to be adjusted because these areas

are not being used to their full potential. Production equivalents are used to adjust for this fact.

1 ha of adjusted forage only area a ‘forage ha’. Every adjusted silage 2 cuts ha would then get a

weight of 0.75, every silage 1 cut ha a weight of 0.5, etc. to obtain forage ha. Now all forage ha

can be summed up and divided according to LU present in winter.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0126

Stocking rates for single enterprise livestock farms is relatively straightforward, involving dividing the

entire area of the “agricultural area of the farm (adjusted for productivity) divided by the livestock units.

Adjusted Area/ Livestock Units

However the calculations can become quite complex when mixed enterprises are concerned. Six

different scenarios, which will cover most mixed agricultural enterprises, are listed in Figure 9, with

details of how to carry out calculations. Catchment Envisage carries out all stocking rate calculations.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0127

Figure 9: Stocking rate calculation per enterprise

Class/ sub-class

Definition Procedure

1 Separate grazing (only)area for dairy anddrystock.

1.1 Separate forageareas andaftermath grazingfor dairy anddrystock. Thesilage area of eachgroup meets thewinter feedrequirements of thegroup.

Calculate stocking rate per production systems with areasused by dairy/drystock.

1.2 Common foragearea (one orseveral fields).Aftermath grazedon separate areasfor dairy/drystockanimals.

• Grazing (only) area is given.• Assign forage area in proportion to LU per

dairy/drystock.• Calculate ‘theoretical total area’ (grazing (only) plus

forage area according to LU) for each productionsystem.

• Calculate ‘production ha’ (area of aftermath which isequal to 1 ha of grazing (only)) available for dairy/beefafter silage/hay: After 1st cut (spring) silage, 2 haaftermath correspond to 1 production ha; after 2nd cutsilage, 4 ha aftermath correspond to 1 production ha;after 1 cut (summer) silage, 3 ha aftermath correspondto 1 production ha; after 1 cut of hay, 3 ha correspondto 1 production ha.

• Deduct aftermath production ha used by other animals(i.e. not the animals the silage/hay area in question isassigned to) from theoretical total area of productionsystem.

• Add aftermath production ha used from otherproduction system (i.e. not the production system thesilage/hay area in question is assigned to) to thetheoretical total area of production system.

This will give the actual total area per production system.The LU per enterprise will be divided by this area to obtain the stocking rate per production system.

1.3 Common silagearea (one orseveral fields).Mixed grazing ofaftermath bydairy/drystockanimals.

Grazing (only) area per enterprise is given. Assign silagearea in proportion to LU per dairy/drystock and add tograzing (only) area. Divide LU per enterprise by areacalculated above.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0128

Figure 9: Stocking rate calculation per enterprise. (Continued)

Class/sub-class

Definition Procedure

2 Mixed grazing (only)area for dairy anddrystock.

2.1 Separate forageareas andaftermath grazingfor dairy anddrystock. Thesilage area of eachgroup meets thewinter feedrequirements of thegroup.

Calculate the relative proportions of dairy and drystockgrazing (only) areas according to LU, add the respectiveforage areas, and divide the LU per enterprise by thecalculated total area per production system. Add Prequirements for grazing (only) of both enterprises.

2.2 Common foragearea (one orseveral fields).Aftermath grazedon separate areasfor dairy/drystockanimals.

• Grazing (only) area: calculate the relative proportionsof dairy and drystock grazing (only) areas according toLU.

• Assign forage area in proportion to LU perdairy/drystock.

• Calculate ‘theoretical total area’ (grazing (only) plusforage area according to LU) for each productionsystem.

• Calculate ‘production ha’ (area of aftermath which isequal to 1 ha of grazing (only)) available for dairy/beefafter silage/hay: After 1st cut (spring) silage, 2 haaftermath correspond to 1 production ha; after 2nd cutsilage, 4 ha aftermath correspond to 1 production ha;after 1 cut (summer) silage, 3 ha aftermath correspondto 1 production ha; after 1 cut of hay, 3 ha correspondto 1 production ha.

• Deduct aftermath production ha used by other animals(i.e. not the animals the silage/hay area in question isassigned to) from theoretical total area of productionsystem.

• Add aftermath production ha used from otherproduction system (i.e. not the production system thesilage/hay area in question is assigned to) to thetheoretical total area of production system.

This will give the actual total area per production system.The LU per enterprise will be divided by this area to obtain the stocking rate per production system. Add Prequirements for grazing (only) of both enterprises.

2.3 Common silagearea (one orseveral fields).Mixed grazing ofaftermath bydairy/drystockanimals.

Calculate the relative proportions of dairy and drystockareas. Divide LU per enterprise by the calculated areas.Add P requirements for grazing (only) of both enterprises.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0129

Example of Stocking Rate Calculations

The following is an example of stocking rate calculations for a mixed cattle farm (Scenario 1.2). The

principal enterprise on this farm is dairying but “followers” (animals used as replacements for the

milking dairy herd) are considered as drystock, and as such land grazed by these animals has a

different nutrient requirement. The farm has a common forage area (area of land cut for

silage/hay/maize) and separate drystock/dairy grazing areas.

• 74.8 LU ( Dairy 60 LU, Drystock 14.85 LU). Winter and summer livestock units (LU) stay the same

(animal equivalent to milking cow) with only slight variations in numbers due the sale of calves and

cull cows.

The total area of the farm (unadjusted) is 34.4 ha and the adjusted area accounting for productivity of

each management units (fields) is 32.2 ha.

• Adjusted grazed only by dairy = 10.18 ha.

• Adjusted area grazed only by drystock = 6.69 ha.

• Adjusted are of forage = 15.15 ha. This forage area is proportioned according the LUs

(dairy/drystock) requirement during the winter or non grazing period. Thus 80% (12.12 ha) of the

area is proportioned to the dairy enterprise and 20% (3.03 ha) of the forage area to the drystock

enterprise.

• Theoretical Total Area (TTA) is the grazing only area for the enterprise (10.18 ha for the dairy)

plus the proportioned forage area (10.18+12.12 = 22.3 ha for the dairy).

The areas of aftermath grazing (area available for grazing after the forage crop has been removed)

are separate for the two enterprises, the dairying getting 8.63 and the drystock getting 6.52. The

production area for the aftermath is the proportioned forage area minus the actual aftermath area

grazed by the particular enterprise multiplied 0.25 in a two cut system (two cuts of silage taken in the

one year from the one field) and multiplied by 0.5 in a single cut system. E.g. 12.12 ha is the

proportioned area for the dairy, minus the actual aftermath grazing available to the dairy enterprise of

8.63 ha = 3.49 multiplied by 0.25 (two cut system) = 0.87 ha. The production area for the other

enterprise should be the same but a minus figure (useful check)

These production areas are then subtracted from the theoretical total area.

• Dairy TAA; .3 – 0.87 = 21.43, this figure is then divided into the LU for that enterprise; 60

LU/21.43 ha = 2.79 LU/ha

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0130

• Drystock TAA; 9.72 - - 0.87 = 10.59, 14.85 LU/10.59 ha = 1.4 LU/ha

The reason for subtracting the production areas of aftermath grazing from the TAA is to account for

the unbalance in the proportioned forage area. In the stocking rate calculations done above the dairy

have a proportioned forage area of 12.12 ha but have only got an aftermath grazing of 8.63 ha with a

production capacity of aftermath of 0.87 ha. This is deducted from the dairy TAA to give a true

reflection of the production of this enterprise.

6.3.3 NMP Calculations

Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium nutrient requirements are calculated for every management unit

(field). The nutrient rates to be applied are devised from Teagasc recommended nutrient

requirements. Phosphorus and Potassium requirements are derived from Nutrient Advice for

Phosphorus and Potassium Fertiliser (Teagasc,1998).

• The nutrient requirements (per ha rates) as looked up in the relevant tables are based on an

adjusted stocking rate (productivity related) for nutrient requirements affected by productivity (P

maintenance and N). They’re based on a non adjusted stocking rate for nutrient requirements not

affected by productivity (P build-up and K). To obtain real rates for the management units, the

rates for adjusted areas need to be converted to rates for available areas (take productivity

percentage). In the case of P requirements, the maintenance requirement, once converted to

available area, needs to be added to the build-up requirement.

• P for silage is productivity related because it also covers P requirements for aftermath grazing.

However, Teagasc do not separate build-up and maintenance for silage. As the silage fields are

usually high productivity fields anyway, the summary (maintenance plus build-up) P figure for

silage is treated as non-productivity related. In the case of N, aftermath grazing according to

stocking rate is applied in addition to N for silage. Productivity related nutrient requirements can

therefore be calculated.

• Outwintering can affect the nutrient requirements of the fields used for it. Basically a high

percentage of the P in feed brought into a field, will end up in the soil P pool. This is therefore

comparable to P applications with manures. The amount of nutrients deposited can be worked out

from the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Water from Pollution by Nitrates (1996)

(P45).

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0131

• For each management unit there will be a recommended N, P and K application rate as chemical

and/or organic fertiliser. The total recommended application for each nutrient is derived from

Teagasc recommendations and then it is decided how to split the application it into chemical

and/or organic fertiliser by the planner, depending on the farmers current practice, the need for

slurry spreading and the hydrological risk of the field. Note that care is to be taken in the case of N

because the available N content in organic fertilisers depends on the time of application I.e. Varies

due to volatilisation during the summer.

• As the nutrient contents of organic fertilisers can vary widely between manure storage facilities, It

should be attempted to specify the origin of manure to be spread on a particular management unit.

The nutrient concentration of slurry should be measured where possible, however in cases where

this is not possible, the nutrient content of slurry can be calculated from the Code of Good

Agricultural Practice to Protect Water from Pollution by Nitrates (1996)(Appendix 2). If significant

quantities of water are going into a slurry tank, it is advisable to estimate the quantity of water and

thus adjust the nutrient concentration accordingly.

• When a plan is discussed with a farmer, The organic & inorganic fertiliser recommendations made

can be compared with the usual practice on the farm. If a farmer applies less fertiliser than

recommended but achieves adequate output, encourage him to stick to his/her practice and adjust

e.g. target P levels. P applications in excess of recommendations should be discouraged. If more

N is applied than the recommended quantity, alert the farmer to the fact that he exceeds Teagasc

recommendations.

6.4 SOILED WATER AND SILAGE EFFLUENT

These factors are not covered in the NMP process but best management practices should ensure that

they do not give rise to water pollution. The storage requirements for soiled water and silage effluents

are ill defined. Thus each farm needs to be assessed individually, risk of pollution due to inadequate

storage identified and make suggestions to rectify the problem if necessary. Take note of areas, which

are used for spreading soiled water and have unexpectedly, high soil P levels. If possible, soiled water

is best spread on areas with P levels < index 4. Ideally soiled water outside SMD period should be

spread on green areas away from streams/open drains.

6.4.1 Silage Effluent

• The amount of silage effluent produced can be assessed on the basis of Code of Good

Agricultural Practice to Protect Water from Pollution by Nitrates (1996) (P42-43).

All of these calculations are carried out by Catchment Envisage- Farms Module.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0132

7 YARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Once the above calculations are completed, then recommendations are made in order to reduce the

risk of nutrient loss from the farmyard. The first set of recommendations relates to the Storage deficit.

If there is a 16-week storage deficit on the farm then recommendations are made to either reduce the

necessary storage capacity, i.e. by reducing the quantity of clean water going to tanks or to increase

the storage capacity on the farm to meet requirements. The use of the “hydrological risk assessment ”

allows for safe spreading of nutrients on low risk (green) areas, during the 16-week storage period.

However the project has stipulated that 16 weeks is the minimum period for which storage is required,

and in some cases more storage may be needed depending on the quantity of low risk (green) land

that a farmer has.

The second set of recommendations relates to the risk of direct nutrient loss from the farmyard. These

recommendations generally relate to improved management and/or building of structures so as to

reduce the risk of direct nutrient loss from the yard. I.e. Controlling surface water movement on the

yard and ensuring that nutrients do not runoff the yard.

8 NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Nutrient management plans are developed so that optimum use is made of nutrients on a farm, thus

making the farm more agronomically efficient and at the same time reducing the chance of nutrient

loss to surface water from the fields

A nutrient management plan is prepared using the methods discussed above, with nutrient

recommendations given on a field by field (management unit by management unit) basis.

Recommendations are also given as to the spreading of slurry/FYM. The location and timing of the

spreading of FYM/Slurry is determined based on the use of the hydrological risk assessment, keeping

in mind the farmers current practice. The nutrient value of the slurry/FYM is assessed and the balance

of nutrients required after the application of slurry/fym is determined. The remaining nutrient

requirement is met by the application of inorganic fertiliser.

It is important that the farmer is in agreement with the NMP and that the application rates are realistic.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26

Three Rivers Project Final Report

MCOS/192/001/002/Rp0036 Rev F0133

9 BFMP PREPARATION & PRESENTATION.

All aspects of the BFMP are presented on an “Output Sheet”. The output sheet contains all the

necessary information and recommendations pertaining to the BFMP. An Output sheet contains the

following:

1) A map of fields (owned & rented) by farmer classed by their “Hydrological Risk class.

2) A farmyard map showing all elements of yard.

3) Yard recommendations: A table is given showing the storage facilities, their current capacity,

capacity required under the Three Rivers Project and the storage deficit. Yard

recommendations are given as outlined before.

4) A Nutrient management plan is supplied in tabular form, giving the nutrient requirements of the

fields & also giving the nutrient value of the Slurry/FYM produced on the farm. Artificial fertiliser

recommendations are also supplied on a field by field basis.

5) General farm recommendations are also given if needed. This outlines any aspects of farm

management that needs to be changed.

6) A Summary BFMP is also supplied- giving a summary of all the above information.

Each farmer is presented with an output sheet on completion of the plan in the presence of his

agricultural advisor.

10 RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE BFMP:

As part of the process, it is essential that re-assessments occur on an ongoing basis in order to

• Monitor the progress of BFMP & ensure that pollution abatement measures outlined in the

plan are being undertaken.

• Update the plan as farmers circumstances change.

For

insp

ectio

n pur

pose

s only

.

Conse

nt of

copy

right

owne

r req

uired

for a

ny ot

her u

se.

EPA Export 26-07-2013:01:29:26