Evaluating the effectiveness of agricultural management practices to reduce nutrient loads from farms in PPWP

Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment

Project Manager: Anja George (DPI) - Catchment and Agriculture Services -

Background
Deteriorating water quality is a major threat to the waterways and bays of PPWP

In 2004, only 25% of the waterways were in good or very good condition.
50% of the PPWP regions is utilised for agr. pursuits enterprises, annual production value $1 billion ). (4,500

Agricultural land is a significant contributor of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

What we ALREADY know...

Clear link between the way agricultural land is managed and nutrient export.
Nutrient export from some agr. pursuits is controlled through licensing, reducing nutrients from majority of land uses relies on BMPs. Appropriate management of agr. land through the adoption of BMP can reduce nutrient exports and minimise water quality impacts. Ability to reduce nutrient exports varies from farm to farm, catchment to catchment, industry to industry. Practices that are successful in one area may not be suitable for all farms or land uses in catchment.

What we DONT know...

To what extent can agri BMPs be used to reduce TN and TP exports from farms to waterways in PPWP?

specific land uses and characteristics of PPWP (soils, rainfall)

Traditionally difficult to measure benefit of individual BMPs on water quality

Research into nutrient export from agricultural land has focused predominantly on the paddock scale (very few at farm scale) AND not in PPWP. Specific information on effectiveness of BMPs in reducing N and P exports in PPWP is limited.

What we NEED to know...

For the major agricultural land uses in PPWP:

What are the agricultural sources of nutrients? Transport pathways of nutrients from farms to waterways? Catchment and Environmental factors that influence export? Which BMPs? (one, all, point, diffuse sources?) Which land uses ? (eg. dairy, beef) How? (feasibility, cost and implementation mechanisms )

Project overview:
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of agricultural BMPs to reduce nutrient (TN and TP) exports from farms to waterways.

Two year project (June 2005- June 2007).

Partnership between DPI CAS and PIRVic Soil and Water Platform Working group (9 members-inter-agency, technical expertise)

Information from this project will help land managers and catchment planners make informed decisions on management of agr. land for water quality protection.

Working Group:
Name Anja George (Project Manager) DPI CAS Port Phillip and Westernport Ruth Duncan DPI PIRVic, Tatura Senior Hydrologist QJ Wang DPI PIRVic, Tatura Principal Scientist, Soil and Water David Nash DPI PIRVic, Ellinbank Statewide Leader Soil Chemistry Kirsten Barlow- Senior Scientist DPI PIRVic, Water Quality Project Manager Murray McIntyre DSE, Manager, Water and Catchment Services David McKenzie EPA-Gippsland Hannah Pexton Melbourne Water (and DSS Project Manager) Mark Hincksman DPI, CAS Whole Farm Planning (Horticlture)

Land uses Investigated

Project focuses on catchments and land uses that have been identified as key sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in PPWP: Dairy (Westernport) Beef (Westernport) Strawberry (representative of annual horticulture) (PP- Yarra)

Methodology
2 sections:
Bayesian Network Model development Model application and demonstration (Scenario testing)

Part 1: Bayesian Network Models

Development of 5 Bayesian Networks Models (TN and TP):

2 x Dairy 1 x Beef 2 x Annual horticulture (Strawberry)

Bayesian Network Models:

Describe cause and effect of management decisions on outcomes

Incorporate qualitative and quantitative information from all levels (farmers, industry, agency, scientists etc..) thereby reducing uncertainty. Calculates consequence of agri. management practices by determining probability (%) of small, medium and large TP/TN load under different management scenarios and landscape characteristics

Limitations (What it cant do!):

Give absolute numbers on nutrient export loads (ie. t/ha/yr). This is presented in probability (%).

Model at farm scale (not catchment). Scenario are used to test and demonstrate wider industry/catchment /regional application.

Rainfall Annual low medium high 12.0 38.0 50.0

Surface Soil Texture light medium heavy 70.0 30.0 0

Sub-Surface Soil Texture light medium heavy 30.0 50.0 20.0 Surface Slope low high 80.0 20.0

HYDROLOGY DIFFUSE SOURCES POINT SOURCES LOAD OUTPUTS

Duration dairy only dairy feedpad 95.0 5.00 0.55 0.22

1080 150 Soil Mgmt poor fair good Total Runoff (mm) low medium high 12.0 38.0 50.0 223 46 Sub-Surface Transport Capacity low medium high 43.8 32.3 23.9 38.3 18 50.0 30.0 20.0 Infiltration Capacity low medium high 20.4 46.3 33.3 Sub-Surface Drainage Capacity low medium high 45.0 39.4 15.6 Sub-Surface Drainage no yes 90.0 10.0

Surface Flow (mm) small medium large 5.75 55.3 39.0 180 61 Spatial Distribution of Fert. poor fair good Timing of Application poor fair good 10.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 75.0 15.0 Fertiliser Application Rate low medium high Bought in Feed low medium high 30.0 50.0 20.0 low medium high 10.0 60.0 30.0

Sub-Surface Flow (mm) small medium large 43.8 32.3 23.9 38.3 18 Dairy/Feed Pad Effluent Mgmt poor fair good Fertility 5.00 50.0 45.0 Stocking Rate (cows/ha) Fert. Application Effectiveness poor fair good 22.0 26.8 51.2 Phosphorus Balance neutral positive very positive 9.89 52.1 38.0 light medium heavy 65.0 20.0 15.0 2 0.8 60.0 30.0 10.0 0.315 0.19

Track Design and Mmgt poor fair good 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.15 0.14

Dairy point source (kg/ha) low medium high 34.7 63.2 2.10 0.906 0.75

Storage of Hay/Silage (kg/ha) poor good 30.0 70.0 0.015 0.023

Diffuse Availability of TP (mg/L) low medium high 24.6 35.7 39.7 2.28 0.71

Point Availability of TP (kg/ha) Sub-Surface Soil peaty sandy other 5.00 95.0 Stock Access to Watercourses yes no 50.0 50.0 0.25 0.25 low medium high 33.4 64.0 2.59 0.939 0.8

Distance of point source to Watercourse close medium far 0.675 0.24 30.0 55.0 15.0

0.05 0.22

Diffuse Surface TP Load (kg/ha) small medium large 13.5 56.0 30.5 4.34 2.4

Sub-Surface TP Load Export kg/ha) small medium large 95.0 .053 4.95 0.0104 0.052

TP Load from Stock Access (kg/ha) low medium high 50.0 42.5 7.50 0.45 0.59

Point TP Load (kg/ha) small medium large 42.0 55.7 2.34

Rainfall Annual low medium high 12.0 38.0 50.0

0.834 0.74

0.595 0.17

Surface and Point TP Load (kg/ha) low medium high 5.7 3.6 45.3 46.9 7.79

TP from Erosion (kg/ha) low medium high 58.3 19.1 22.5

Availability of TP Tunnel/Gully Erosion (... low medium high 0.06 0.11 60.0 20.0 20.0

0.0771 0.13

Probability of TP load from Dairy farm

TP Load from Dairy Farm (kg/ha) small medium large 75.3 23.3 1.39 3.81 2.8

Surface TP Load Export (kg/ha) low medium high 75.4 23.2 1.34 3.8 2.8

Nutrient Retention small medium large very large 19.0 60.0 20.0 1.0

0.612 0.17

Example: Diffuse TP load (Dairy)

Spatial Distribution of Fert. poor 33.3 fair 33.3 good 33.3 Timing poor fair good of Application 33.3 33.3 33.3 Fertiliser Application Rate low 33.3 medium 33.3 high 33.3 Fertility low 33.3 medium 33.3 high 33.3

Bought in Feed low 33.3 medium 33.3 high 33.3

Fert. Application Effectiveness poor 36.7 fair 26.7 good 36.7

Phosphorus Balance neutral 18.0 positive 51.3 very positive 30.7

Diffuse Availability of TP (mg/L) low 26.7 medium 33.5 high 39.8 2.44 0.96

Model Applications
Scenario Testing:

To demonstrate how changes in climate, landscape factors (eg. soil types, rainfall, slope) and management practices (eg. effluent and fertiliser management) can influence TN and TP export. Scenarios
Poor Management

Description
Worst or poor management practices

Current Management
Farmers Future Plans

Management of farms at time of investigation

Landholder selected management practices they are planning to implement within the next 5-10 years

Greatest Nutrient Reduction (A = feasible, B =not feasible) Best Practice (A = feasible, B =not feasible)

Management practice with greatest capacity for reducing TN and TP export from farms as informed by models (top 3). Feasibility (cost effectiveness) is also investigated All best management practices as informed by industry guidelines.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4
Greatest Nutrient Reduction (costeffective) Greatest Nutrient Reduction (Not costeffective)

Scenario 5
Best Practice (costeffective) Best Practice (Not costeffective)

Variables

Poor Practices

Current Management

Farmers Planned

Annual rainfall Surface soil texture Sub-surface soil texture Surface slope Sub-surface soil* Fertility* Distance to waterways Soil management Sub-surface drainage Timing of fertiliser application Spatial distribution of fertiliser Fertiliser application rate Bought in feed Stocking rate Effluent Management Track design and management Storage of silage Stock access to watercourses Tunnel/Gully erosion* Nutrient retention Poor No Poor Poor High Low Light Poor Poor Poor Yes High Small

High Heavy 30%, Medium 70% Heavy High Other High Close Fair No Fair Poor High Low Light Poor Fair Good Yes 50% No 50% High Small Fair No Fair Poor High Low Light Good Fair Good Yes 50% No 50% High Small Fair No Good Poor Low Low Light Poor Fair Good No High Medium Fair No Good Poor Low Low Light Poor Fair Good No High Very Large Good No Good Good Low Low Light Good Good Good No Medium Medium Good Yes Good Good Low Low Light Good Good Good No Low Very Large

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4
Greatest Nutrient Reduction (costeffective) Greatest Nutrient Reduction (Not costeffective)

Scenario 5
Best Practice (costeffective) Best Practice (Not costeffective)

Probability of nutrient loads

Probability of SMALL TP load Probability of MEDIUM TP load

Poor/Past Practices

Current Management

Farmers Planned

15%
56%

19%
59%

24%
62%

69%
31%

100%
0%

82%
19%

100%
0%

Probability of LARGE TP load

Change in Phosphorus Load Improvement in TP load Direction compared to current management

28%

22%

14%
0.13

0%
0.72 Very Large 0.81 Very Large 12% 72% 16% 0.40 Very Large 0.52 Very Large

0%
1.03 Very Large 1.13 Very Large 28% 59% 13% 0.59 Very Large 0.71 Very Large

0%
0.85 Very Large 0.94 Very Large 19% 73% 6% 0.56 Very Large 0.69 Very Large

0%
1.03 Very Large 1.13 Very Large 31% 62% 7% 0.68 Very Large 0.80 Very Large

Change in Phosphorus Load

Improvement in TP load compared to poor management Probability of SMALL TN load Probability of MEDIUM TN load Probability of LARGE TN load Change in Nitrogen Load

and magnitude of change in nutrient load to compare scenarios

1% 42% 57%

Large 0.09 Small 1% 54% 45% 0.22 Large 4% 55% 42% 0.06 Small 0.12 Large 0.18 Large

Improvement in TN load compared to current management

Change in Nitrogen Load

Improvement in TN load compared to poor management

Where to from here?

Assessment of results
What do these results mean for:
a) b) c) d) e) f) Farmers? Land use and agri industry (ie. dairy)? Management of agricultural land in catchment? Broader application/PPWP/BBW Strategy? Future Implementation mechanisms? Knowledge and research gaps (R and D requirements)?

Final Project report due: June 2007.

Thank You

Anja George Department of Primary Industries Woori Yallock Ph: (03) 5954 4001 anja.george@dpi.vic.gov.au