The list of initiatives in line for government funding went up another level last week with the publication of the final report of an expert working group set up to develop a land management strategy for NI.

The group, led by former Ulster Farmers Union president John Gilliland, has come forward with a number of challenging proposals. While accepting there is a cost to delivery, they argue investing now will lead to long-term savings for the industry, and bring a marketing advantage for food produced in NI.

At the report launch last week, Minister for Agriculture Michelle McIlveen said the government will consider the proposals carefully. She said investment is also needed from the agri-food industry, not just government. “Finding sufficient funding streams will be challenging,” said the minister. But she maintained if the industry can show there are lasting and tangible benefits, it will be easier to make a case. “Success will require charm with those who hold the purse string,” she said.

Initially it is likely McIlveen will make a case to the EU for financial support, especially given that officials in Brussels have generally been favourable towards the plan. Speaking at an event in Belfast in August, also attended by European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan, the minister suggested NI could be used as a pilot for land management policy in Europe.

Failing that, the next port of call for funding is probably Westminster, followed by the Stormont Executive. To date, Gilliland has tended to sidestep questions on the amount of money required to deliver the recommendations, but the figure is believed to be in the region of £150m.

A chunk of that is required to deliver a solution for an estimated 1,200 intensive farms in NI, producing around 40% of farm output but with no land solution to the recycling of phosphorus (P). Due to the amount of slurry and manure applied in recent years, their land is at Index 3 and above for P. With additional P going on in excess of crop need, the concern is that some P ends up in watercourses. In NI, 63% of watercourses fail to achieve ‘good or better’ status, compared with an EU average of 47%. “Phosphorus is the problem here,” said Gilliland.

Regulation

While there is nothing currently to stop a dairy or beef unit spreading slurry on soil with a P index of 3 or above, the working group recommends NI farmers must accelerate a voluntary move away from applying P containing nutrients on this land. The risk is that a change is imposed by regulation at a later date.

To help these intensive farms out of a potential nightmare scenario, the group has recommended a one-off grant scheme. The grant would assist these farms to invest in technologies such as decanting centrifuges and bench press separators – equipment to separate out the solid faction from slurry, making it easier to export high P containing nutrient to other farms.

The expert group has called for this scheme to be delivered ahead of other priorities.

Driving behavioural change among farmers

With the health of soil crucial to grass and crop growth, one of the key recommendations from the expert working group is that every field in NI is soil tested to establish a baseline and encourage farmer interest in making improvements. In particular, up to 64% of soils in NI are below optimum for pH and require lime.

At present, each year less than 2% of fields in NI are analysed. However, the group proposes that an independent contractor is used to take a sample on every 2ha block of land (every 10ha on peat). If voluntary uptake is insufficient, “appropriate measures” should be used to compel soil analysis.

In addition, the group recommends that all of NI is scanned using 3-D laser technology or LiDAR. Given that 80% of P enters waterways via overland flow (especially after heavy rain), the technology will potentially help farmers identify fields and areas of most risk. Farmers would then be encouraged to plant woody strips along overland flow pathways to prevent nutrients getting into watercourses. Also, similar woody strips would be planted downhill from farmyards and at discharges from septic tanks.

To help monitor the impact of changes, the group recommends that there is improved monitoring of water quality at 60 to 80 water catchment sites across NI (out of a total of 450 sites).

This data, along with information on soil analysis and LiDAR, is then combined to give farmers personal data relating to their land. “It will empower farmers to make the right decision from a position of knowledge. It is the start of behavioural change,” said John Gilliland last week.

Spreading

Among other recommendations, the group would like to see increased usage of advanced slurry spreading techniques such as a trailing shoe or band spreaders which have been shown to reduce ammonia emissions from slurry and increase grass yields.

They do not propose a restriction on traditional splash plates, but by 2020 would like to see all new equipment fitted with trailing shoe, shallow injection or band spreaders and 80% of slurry spread using these techniques.

In terms of advice and guidance around best use of nutrients and minimising pollution, the expert group advocates a new model of governance.

According to Gilliland, there is a fear factor among farmers towards the NI Environment Agency (NIEA) which has created a negative attitude towards environmental management among some farmers.

“No one is asking to get rid of enforcement. We just want advice first and enforcement second,” he said.

Conacre

The other major recommendation that has the potential to affect all farmers relates to conacre. With up to 30% of land in NI let out annually, the system is not conducive to tenants trying to build soil fertility to increase grass and crop yields.

Instead, the expert group would like tax incentives given to landlords who lease land over five years or longer, as happens in the Republic of Ireland. However, given that tax raising power rests in London, a case must be put to Westminster for the introduction of a NI-specific scheme.

A key point emphasised by Gilliland last week is that Government must not cherry pick through the recommendations – they should all be implemented, although he accepted that this might have to be done in a phased approach.

Win-win situation from growing more grass

Fundamental to the land management strategy is to grow and utilise more grass, with recommendations put in place to encourage reseeding and more use of clover.

With more grass comes an increased ability to take more phosphorus (P) out of the soil and a reduced reliance on bought-in P in the form of concentrate feed. Overall, the amount of excess P within NI agriculture is reduced.

Growing and utilising more grass also means farmers can keep more livestock, and help the industry meet growth targets as set out in the Agri-Food Strategy Board’s Going for Growth report (which recommended that a land management policy be developed in NI).

Bnefits

To analyse the economic and environmental benefits of increased grass utilisation, the expert working group asked scientists at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) to explore the issue.

Presenting the results last week, Dr Sinclair Mayne from AFBI estimated that dairy farms in NI are currently utilising around 7.5t of grass dry matter (DM) per hectare, and beef and sheep farms around 4.1t DM/ha. Yet local studies have shown that 12t DM/ha utilised is possible. “It does show that there is scope,” said Mayne.

The factors limiting growth include nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur) as well as pH, drainage, grass species and variety.

Using a baseline of 7,700-litre cows, fed 2.4t of concentrate and utilising 7.5t DM/ha, increasing grass utilised by 1t to 8.5t DM/ha increases margin by £45/ha (less concentrate fed, but milk yield down as well).

However, if this is combined with a 7.5% increase in grass quality, and milk yield is maintained at 7,700 litres by feeding 2.08t of concentrate per cow, the increase in margin per hectare is £441 (assuming a milk price of 28ppl). In both scenarios the amount of P in excess of requirements is significantly reduced.

It is a similar situation for a beef farm, although in general there is much less of an issue with P being in excess. Increasing grass utilised from 4.1t to 5.1t, and improving grass quality by 7.5% is worth an additional £204/ha (assuming a beef price of 330p/kg), while also reducing the amount of P in excess.

If applied across all dairy and beef farms, growing more grass of higher quality would be worth an additional £84.9m and £111m respectively, while at the same time, the environmental impact of P is reduced. “It is a classic win-win situation – increasing profit while lowering P. But we shouldn’t underestimate the challenge. A major shift is required,” concluded Mayne.