A1260063058xhlPb

1
Green Dairy Environment friendly and
sustainable dairy systems in the Atlantic
Area (Interreg IIIB Atlantic Area)
A. PFLIMLIN, H. CHAMBAUT, C. RAISON, A. LE
GALL Institut de l'Elevage
2
Green Dairy Main results

• Plan
• Pilot farms N-P surplus
• Experimental farms water and air losses
• Regional balance and dairy contribution

3
I. Pilot farms 3 main dairy systems
139 pilot farms
Grazing systems of the North high min. N., high N
surplus
10
24
13
Forage crop systems in France low input, low N-P.
surplus
15
13
9
18
11
21
Intensive systems of the South very high feed
input,very high N-P. surplus
Nb of pilot farms
4
Description of the N balance in 3 typical dairy
systems
5
(No Transcript)
6
How to define the surplus /ha or /ton of milk ?
N surplus (kg N/ha AA)
Milk production (litres/ha AA)
N surplus (kg N/1 000 l)
Milk production (litres/ha AA)
7
From the diagnosis to the improvment project
Grazing systems of the North

• 150 to 250 kg N/ha surplus
• gt 200 kg mineral N/ha AA
• Long grazing periods
• 2-3 months storage capacity

• Increase storage capacity
• Better use of slurry on grassland
• Reduce mineral N
• and introduce white clover

Forage crops systems

• Nitrates vulnerable zone for
• gt 10 years
• Good managment of cattle manure
• 100 kg N/ha AA 20 kg P2O5/ha AA

• Slurry and FYM management
• Reduce mineral P
• Maintain efforts to improve water
• quality

Intensive systems of the South

• Low availability of land
• 350 to 500 kg N/ha AA and
• gt 85 kg P2O5/ha AA
• - Low storage capacity (3 months)

• Increase storage capacities
• Reduce mineral N
• No mineral P
• Reduce concentrates but difficult

8
Benefits of the project

• Farmers, RD in a stimulating European Network,
  with meetings and exchange

• Better knowledge of the dairy systems of the
  Atlantic
• area and their constraints

• N and P balance at farm scale is a good tool for
  the improvement

• Pilot farms can be use to convince others farmers

9
II. 9 experimental farms 3 main forage systems
3
Hillsbouough
1
Solohead
2
Mabegondo
10
Farm gate balance surplus and milk /ha in
experimental farms
11
Losses of nitrogen towards water and air in
experimental farms
Farm gate surplus
12
Different kinds of N. gas emissions
Kg N/ha AA
High concentrate
Intensive
Forage crop
Intermediate

13
N. Losses in drainage water

Average 30 to 55 mg NO3/l
10 to 30 mg NO3/l
Grassland system
Forage crops system
14
9 experimental farms Different kinds of
emissions
Kg N/HA
Intensive
Intermediate
Forage crop

Default of balance organisation,
mineralisation, denitrification, errors
15
Two typical cases
Grasslandsystems 2 - 2.812 000 200 - 300 40 -
70 lt5 gt10
Forage crops systems 1.5 - 26 000 50 - 100 10 -
40 40 2-7
Stocking rate LSU/FAMilk kg/ha AA Mineral N Kg
/ha Grazed grass in diet Ploughed fields
Organic matter in soil
16
Conclusions

• N losses towards water depend on
• forage system, soil, climate, N surplus

• Permanent grassland systems seem less risk
• for water quality than forage crop systems

• In forage crop systems, N management has to
  be more strict (less surplus, cover crops etc.,
  grazing periods)

17
III. Contribution of the dairy herd to nitrogen
surplus and risks for water quality at the
regional scale two main questions

• Regional N surplus
• - What is the dairy herd contribution to the N
  surplus at the regional level?
• - How much improvement can be related to feeding
  and fertilizer practices for the dairy herd?

• N surplus and water quality
• - What is the relationship between the N surplus
  and the quality of the surface water?

18
The regional context
NVZ
2005
2002
High content
1994
A few points
West of France a hot spot!
19
The GD pilot farms a different picture
Average NO3 content
North West Europe

• N surplus 200 kg/ha AA

West France

• Moderate N surplus 100 kg N/ha AA

S.W Europe

• High N surplus
• 300-500 kg/ha AA

• How can we explain this gap ?
• ?Need of a regional balance

20
Methodology for the regional nitrogen balance

• A field-herd balance
• - Inputs Animal manure, mineral fertilizers
• ( fixation deposition)
• - Outputs Exports via crops and forages
• Crops YieldN content area ( ha )

• Improvement Dairy cows N after milk and CP in
  diet
• Limit of the method for forages, yields and N
  content
• are poorly
  known but very influent

Source OECD methodology Software NOPOLU - IFEN
21
Regional data used for computationof the N
balance

• Census 2000 at different scales
• (county or municipalities )
• - land use, crops, forages etc.
• - livestock types, nb, etc.
• Agronomic data (yields, fertilizers,
  concentrate, grazing period, forage quality)
  from the Green Dairy regional experts

• Weak points
• - Quality and quantity of the data
• - Harmonisation between regions?

22
From the nitrogen surplus to the surface water
quality
Sampling points
Quite good similarities
23
Nitrogen balance/ha AA and nitrates in surface
water in the West of France

• Brittany
• Poor water quality (33 mg)
• Higher surplus / ha AA due to cattle, pig and
  poultry
• Little buffer (forest, permanent grassland)
• Pays de Loire
• More variation in water quality (23 mg)
• Some high surplus areaand low rain
• In both regions AA 2/3 of the total area, mainly
  in maize and temporary grass

24
Nitrogen surplus in the West of FranceDifferent
scenarios
H1 2014 1700 L/cow good fert. plan pig
slurry treat
H2 2014 1700 L/cow optimal fertiliser use
Towards a green Brittany
25
To sum up the Dairy contribution

• The increase of the milk production per cow has
  little effect
• - On the N surplus per ha FA of dairy farms
• (except in high concentrates systems)
• - On the regional N surplus..because of transfer
  of ha FA to other crops
• The fertilisation practices, the future of the
  set aside will have more influence on the
  surplus
• (Specific study West of France)

26
Conclusions 3 very different dairy systems and
contexts

• North West of Europe
• high N inputs, high stocking rate, maxi grazing
• but low risk for water perm.grass, long growing
  season,
• high rain dilution some flexibility
• But more risks for global warming
• West of France
• Low N inputs today but high surplus in the past
• and a very prone to leaching environment
• No flexibility about reducing N
  surplus
• South West of Europe
• very high N inputs and N balances on dairy farms
• But still low nitrates in water high rain,
  plenty of forest and extensive grassland
• Point pollution trend to more intensive systems
• Anticipate the long term effects

27
Conclusions How can these regional diversities
cope with a common European Environment
regulation?

• There are good arguments for a derogation (gt 170
  Kg org.N) for the Northern grassland regions as
  well as for the Southern regions producing 15 to
  25 t DM forage / ha 3 to 5 cows/ha
• There is much less flexibility for the West of
  France!
• The WFD, goal oriented, will give much more scope
  for regional rules which will need more reliable
  regional references
• 3. The WFD will focus on all types of water
  pollution, especially on eutrophication where the
  nitrate (and P) content should be much lower than
  for drinking water

28
Risk factors and levels for the waterin 3
typical dairy regions
Region Physical Env. Climate Soil (drainage) AA / Total area Intensivity / ha AA Org N Load / 170 N / ha Intensivity / ha AA Org N Load / 170 N / ha Agri. Practices Agri. Practices Level of risk Nitrate in surface water (mg/L)
Region Physical Env. Climate Soil (drainage) AA / Total area Dairy Other crops/ grassland Fertilizer use Level of risk Nitrate in surface water (mg/L)
Ireland SW Low (500) high (70 ) high (1/3) 170 N Low (2/3) Very low High /milk Low to med. (15 mg) (limited data)
Brittany High (300-500) High (65 ) Medium (?) - 170 N Medium to high (?) High Medium (?) High (?) 33 mg
Galicia low (700) Low (30 ) Low to high (?) Low Low low low (?) 3 mg