Manure management facilities on farms and their relevance to efficient nutrient use Bernard Hyde...

Manure management facilities on farms and

their relevance to efficient nutrient use

Bernard Hyde & Owen, T. Carton

Teagasc, Johnstown Castle

The Fertilizer Association of Ireland

Winter Scientific Meeting 25th November 2005

Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin

Manure

2003 - 6.3 million animals = 37 million

tonnes

Slurry = 29.3 million tonnes

Solid = 7.7 million tonnes

Dairy cows ~ 28% of slurry & ~ 7% of solid manure

Solid manure21%

Slurry79%

Topic – facilities & utilisation Manure management facilities

Storage Spreading date Spreading method

Nutrient efficiency Manure type N, P & K

Cost vs. nutrient value

Requirements for efficient nutrient use NMP

Changing slurry spreading date

Changing slurry spreading method

Storage vs. spreading date?

Cost benefit?

Efficient manure nutrient use

Soil Manure Crop demand Code of Practice

Rate Date Method

Current utilisation? Indicators?

FUS (2002 & 2005) Indications of N, P & K overuse

Fert. input = Fert. required Slurry?

Farm Facilities Survey (2003) – crop & timing of application

Topic – facilities & utilisation Manure management facilities

Storage Spreading date Spreading method

Timing of slurry application & % of total

Spring Summer Autumn Winter Total

Conservation land 0.26 0.43 0.11 0.03 0.83

Grazing land 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.13

Maize 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03

Tillage 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

Total 0.33 0.48 0.14 0.05

Grazing land 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.13

Maize 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03

Tillage 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

Total 0.33 0.48 0.14 0.05

Grazing land 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.13

Maize 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03

Tillage 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

Total 0.33 0.48 0.14 0.05

Timing of slurry application

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Conservation land 31 52 13 4

Utilisation efficiency

N 25 5 0 0

P 100 100 100 100

K 100 100 100 100?

Timing of slurry application

Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Conservation land 31 52 13 4

Utilisation efficiency

N 25 5 0 0

P 100 100 100 100

K 100 100 100 100?

Storage Spreading date – 4% in winter

Estimated storage deficits – national basis 21% for 16 week storage 31% for 22 week storage

Action Programme Ban on winter spreading Required minimum slurry storage

Reconcile deficit and date?

Landspreading - N efficiency N efficiency – key issue

Spreading date & rate Soil/weather conditions

Contamination Spreading date

Spreader availability Farmer owned Contractor

Median 10 percentile90 percentile365 days

0 days

183 days

365 days

0 days

183 days

Slurry spreading opportunitiesDistribution of the number of days on which soils have a soil moisture deficit in excess of 10 mm. (Schulte et al., in press)

Silage contamination ?

End March/early April

Crop – too far advanced

Risk of poor fermentation

Spreader availability C.S.O. – Census of Ag. 2000

124, 108 livestock farms (< 5 to >= 100 ha)

72, 368 livestock farms (20 to >= 100 ha)

31, 046 farms own or share slurry tankers

35, 281 farms hire or borrow slurry tankers

Farm Facilities Survey

Holding

Fragment 2 Fragment 3 Fragment 4 Fragment 5 Fragment 6+

27% consist of 1 holding

31% have 4 + fragments

Farm Fragmentation

Fragment Distance

2.9 2.9

Fragment 2 Fragment 3 Fragment 4 Fragment 5 Fragment 6+

tance (

Farm Fragmentation – distance (km)

Topic – facilities & utilisation

Nutrient efficiency

Nutrient availability

Type of manure

Dry matter(%) *

N (kg/t)

Total Spring Summer

P (kg/t) K (kg/t)

Cattle

slurry6.9 3.6 0.9 0.2 0.6 4.3

* Dry matter content varies widely and this determines the nutrient contents

N availability in slurryOrganic - N

(Ammonium – N)

Inorganic - N

Ammonium - N

Spring

Crop available

Summer

100000

120000

Fertiliser N Total slurry N Available slurry N Current advice Current utilisation

Fertiliser N for silage compared to slurry N

100000

120000

Current utilisation vs. available N

Spreading method

Spreading date

Soil/weather conditions

Advantages of trailing shoe application NH3 emission reduced Recovery of total N ~ 40 - 50% Slurry can be applied to taller crops Slurry applied to soil surface –

contamination ? Increased opportunity for spring application Heavier soils in wetter areas Teagasc research

100000

120000

Organic N

Inorganic/organic = 50/50 Organic material/solid fraction Currently not considered as a

reliable N source Mineralization 60 kg N/ha (33t/ha) for slurry Teagasc research

Topic – facilities & utilisation

Cost vs. nutrient value

100000

120000

Economic value of slurry N (€ million)

100000

120000

Economic value of slurry N (€ million)

100000

120000

Economic value of slurry N (€ million)€ 67.2

100000

120000

€ 3.8

100000

120000

€ 3.8

€ 14.8

100000

120000

€ 3.8

€ 14.8

€ 29.5

100000

120000

€ 3.8

€ 14.8

€ 29.5

€ 59.1

Economic value (million €) of slurry

Nitrogen, €59.1

Potassium, €45.4

Phosphorus, €23.7

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

€ 83.9 million

€ 98.7 million

€ 128.1 million

Summary 29.3 million tonnes slurry

Current utilisation

Key issues - storage & landspreading

Nutrient availability – N efficiency

Spreading methodology – conventional vs ts

Economic value of slurry - €128 million

Conclusions Manure/slurry is a valuable resource

Short-term Change application timing from summer/autumn to

spring Change spreading method Available N in slurry a/c’s ~ 45% of purchased fert. N

Long-term Increase nutrient efficiency Organic N

Research

Manure management facilities on farms and their relevance to efficient nutrient use Bernard Hyde...

Documents

Prof. Gerry Boyle Teagasc

Organic Farm Walk - Teagasc · Teagasc Organic Farm Walk - 9 - Soil Nutrients and Manure Management The aim of organic farming is to maintain soil fertility levels by efﬁcient recycling

Teagasc National Farm Survey of Manure Application€¦ · development of the questionnaire and their comments on the final report. Survey on ManureSpreading and Storage Practices

Financial Planning for a Farmer Undergoing Organic Conversion Dan Clavin, Teagasc, Athenry Pat Barry, Teagasc, Moorepark Teagasc National Organic Conference,

DERRERA Gayle (Daughty ...sites.rootsweb.com/~cowcgs/WCMI/Derrera_G.pdf · The Johnstown Breeze The Johnstown Breeze The Johnstown Breeze The Johnstown Breeze The Johnstown Breeze

Greater Johnstown Career & Technology Center … cat v1/GJC… · Page 3 Greater Johnstown Career & Technology Center Greater Johnstown Career & Technology CenterBuilding bright futures

FoResight 2035 - World Congress of Food Science and Technology Technology Foresight Report... · ii | teagasc technology FoResight 2035 Teagasc teagasc – the agriculture and Food

“Teagasc Together”

History - Teagasc

Town of Johnstown - Design Guidelines · 2020. 11. 10. · JOHNSTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Introduction “If you don’t’ know where you’re going, any road will do.” Johnstown

Ty Arfryn Johnstown, Carmarthen

Teagasc National Farm Survey: The Sustainability of … · Teagasc National Farm Survey: The Sustainability ... Thia Hennessy, Brian Moran, John Lennon, ... Teagasc National Farm

Manure Compost And Seafood Processing Waste Contaminant ... · sawdust, feedlot manure and dairy manure. Dairy manure may contain some bedding straw. Feedlot manure is usually well-aged,

Teagasc food industry development

Preliminary Report on Organic Dairy Farming · 2014-10-16 · Preliminary Report on Organic Dairy Farming Noel Culleton & Rioch Fox Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford Introduction

Johnstown Lyft Brochure

Epoxy Colorado - Johnstown Enclosed Indoor Patio Epoxy Johnstown, Colorado

Johnstown - NASA

Slurry and nutrient efficiency display - Teagasc · PDF fileWelcome On behalf of Teagasc, I welcome you to Johnstown Castle today. Our Slurry and Nutrient Efficiency Open Day today

Data Privacy - Teagasc