Periodic Reporting for period 2 - Target-N2O (Targeting N2O emission hot-spots in dairy pastures for mitigation action: microbes, stable isotope methods and modelling)
Berichtszeitraum: 2020-11-01 bis 2021-10-31
The conclusions of the action include:
- emissions from areas impacted highly by livestock are generally higher than when applied to standard areas of pasture
- temperature, inhibitor application rate and degree of vegetative cover are important for determining the efficacy of nitrification inhibitors in reducing N2O emissions
- the microbial community composition changes more rapidly in response to urine application in areas highly impacted by livestock compared to when applied within a standard area of pasture
- DMPP reduced emissions by 49% from urine applied to standard pasture in a temperate dairy farm, but only by 24% in a gateway on the same farm, indicating a lower efficacy in soils highly impacted by livestock
- options to reduce N2O emissions from areas impacted by livestock must not rely on inhibitors alone - farmers should consider additional options such as pads to capture nutrients deposited to these areas and attempting to maintain vegetative cover in these areas
A field trial was conducted on an intensive dairy farm in sub-tropical NSW, Australia (Fig. 1), to determine whether the nitrification inhibitor, DMPP, would be effective in reducing nitrification and subsequent N2O emissions from an area of the farm receiving greater stocking densities (a gateway). Under the conditions of our study DMPP (1.5 kg ha-1) was ineffective in reducing nitrification rates or N2O emissions. We tested increasing rates of DMPP application in the laboratory but found no effect on DMPP performance when increasing from 1 to 10 % of the urine-N applied. In the return year two field trials were conducted, one on a temperate sheep farm and the other on an intensive dairy farm. On the sheep farm an area was created to simulate sheep congregation by placing large feed troughs in the field and rotating them periodically to achieve an area which was disturbed by livestock. Emissions of N2O were greater from urine applied to the area around the feeding troughs compared to the standard area of pasture. While DMPP reduced emissions slightly in the standard pasture, the inhibitor was not effective in reducing emissions of N2O from the livestock impacted area even though applied at a rate of 10 kg ha-1, which is ten times the rate that would normally be applied alongside fertilizers. On the intensive dairy farm in North Wales, N2O emissions from cattle urine applied to a gateway area or an area of standard pasture, with and without DMPP applied at 10 kg ha-1. As was expected emissions were higher from the gateway area, and here the DMPP was effective in reducing N2O emissions by 49% in the standard pasture, but only by 24% in the gateway. Taken together the results suggest that a higher application rate of DMPP is required for urine than would typically be applied with fertilizers. Additionally, nitrification inhibitors are concluded to be not as effective in livestock congregation areas. This is because there is limited vegetation in these areas to mop up any urine-N held in the ammonium form for longer via the inhibitors.