You are on page 1of 102

www.defra.gov.

uk

The Environmental Impact of Livestock


Production

Review of Research and Literature

February 2008
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
Telephone 020 7238 6000
Website: www.defra.gov.uk

© Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2007

This publication is value added. If you wish to re-use this material, please
apply for a Click-Use Licence for value added material at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/value-added-licence-information/index.htm.

Alternatively applications can be sent to Office of Public Sector Information,


Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3
1BQ; Fax: +44 (0)1603 723000; email: hmsolicensing@cabinet-
office.x.gsi.gov.uk

Information about this publication and copies are available from:

Livestock and Livestock Products Hub


Defra
Area 5B, 9 Millbank
c/o Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

This document is available on the Defra website and has been produced for
Defra by ADAS UK Ltd.

Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs


Suggested citation for this report:

ADAS 2007: The Environmental Impact of Livestock Production. Report for Defra FFG.

The ADAS Team:

Kate Phillips
Martyn Silgram
Paul Newell-Price
Michelle Werrett
Gill Povey
Bruce Cottrill
John Newton.

With additional assistance from:

Mark Shepherd
Ken Smith
Nigel Critchley
Brian Chambers

Abbreviations used:

AONB – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty


BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan
BOD – Biological Oxygen Demand
CH4 – methane
CO2 – carbon dioxide
EA – Environment Agency
FIO – faecal indicator organism
FYM – farm yard manure
GHG – greenhouse gas
IPPC – Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
N – nitrogen
N2O – nitrous oxide
NH3 – ammonia
NVZ – Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
SCOPS – Sustainable Control of Parasites in Sheep
TAN – Total ammoniacal nitrogen
Contents

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 5
1.1 Project Methodology 6
1.2 Background 6
1.3 Potential Impacts on Soil and Water 9
1.4 Potential Impacts on Air 10
1.5 Biodiversity and the Countryside 12
1.6 Valuing the Environment and Livestock Farming 14

2. Summary of Impacts – Dairy Farming Systems 15


2.1 Public Goods Delivered 15
2.2 Environmental Impacts of Dairy Farming Systems 15
2.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Dairy Farming) 20

3. Summary of Impacts – Beef Farming Systems 22


3.1 Public Goods Delivered 22
3.2 Environmental Impacts of Beef Farming Systems 23
3.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Beef Farming) 24

4. Summary of Impacts – Sheep Farming Systems 26


4.1 Public Goods Delivered 26
4.2 Environmental Impacts of Sheep Farming Systems 26
4.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Areas for Future Research 27

5. Summary of Impacts – Pig Farming Systems 29


5.1 Public Goods Delivered 29
5.2 Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming Systems 29
5.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Pig Farming) 32

6. Summary of Impacts – Poultry Farming Systems 33


6.1 Public Goods Delivered 33
6.2 Environmental Impacts of Poultry Farming Systems 33
6.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Poultry) 34

7. Overall Gaps in Knowledge Common to all Livestock Sectors 36


Contents – cont’d

8. Current Defra Funded Projects 37


Dairy and Beef Cattle 37
Pigs 37
Sheep 37
Poultry 38
Livestock Manure 38
Soil Erosion 38
Veterinary Medicines 38
Integrated Farm Management 38

Review of the Scientific Literature 40


Appendix 1 – Environmental Impact of Dairy and Beef Farming 40
1.1 Soil 40
1.2 Water 45
1.3 Air 49
1.4 Biodiversity 53

Appendix 2 – Environmental Impact of Sheep Farming 59


2.1 Soil 59
2.2 Water 61
2.3 Air 61
2.4 Biodiversity 62

Appendix 3 – Environmental Impact of Pig Farming 66


3.1 Soil 66
3.2 Water 68
3.3 Air 69
3.4 Biodiversity 72

Appendix 4 – Environmental Impact of Poultry Farming 74


4.1 Soil 74
4.2 Water 76
4.3 Air 77
4.4 Strategies to Reduce Pollution From Poultry Systems 78
4.5 Biodiversity 79

References 80-96
TABLES

Table 1.1 – UK Agricultural Land by Use 5


Table 1.2 – Population of Livestock in the UK, 2000 to 2006 7
Table 1.3 – Output from the UK Livestock Industry (2006) 9
Table 1.4 – Summary of 2005 Agricultural Methane Emissions 11
Table 1.5 – Summary of 2005 Agricultural Nitrous Oxide Emissions 11

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – UK Livestock Numbers per 100 km² for Poultry, Sheep, Cattle 8
and Pigs.
Figure A1.1 – The Probability of Grassland Poaching in Relation to the 41
Growing and Grazing Seasons, and Potential Transpiration
Figure A1.2 – Typical N Content in Cattle Slurry and Potential Nitrate 46
Leaching Risk from Dairy Slurry and Old Cattle Farmyard Manure applied to
a Sandy Soil in Different Months under Contrasting Annual Rainfall
Conditions.
Figure A3.1 – Typical Content of Pig Slurry; The Relative Risk of Nitrate 69
Leaching from Pig Slurry and Other Materials Applied to Two Clay Sites and
the Potential Nitrate Leaching Risk from Pig Slurry Applied to a Sandy Soil
in Different Months under Contrasting Annual Rainfall Conditions.
Figure A3.2 – Conventional Applications of Pig Slurry Using a Raingun and 71
Via Broadcasting and Top dressing using a Boom. Strategies to Reduce
Ammonia Volatilisation From Slurry Applications Include Open Slot Shallow
Injection, Trailing Shoes and Trailing Hoses
Figure A4.1 – Effect of Broiler Litter Application Rate on Topsoil Available 76
Water Capacity (AWC) at Gleadthorpe (Spring 2001).
Figure A4.2 – Nitrogen Leaching – Comparison Between Poultry Manure 77
and FYM by Land Type and Time of Application. Data Collected Over 10
Site Years.
Executive Summary

The main domestic livestock sectors produce a wide range of products (food, leather, wool
etc) and public services, such as employment, landscape and cultural heritage. However
livestock production impacts on the environment in a variety of ways, both positive and
negative, but there are some systems where there is greater potential for the environment to
be compromised in order to achieve efficient production. The key is to minimise negative
impacts in the most cost-effective way.

This work reviewed the scientific literature (and other unpublished research data) on the
impacts of livestock production on the environment and has highlighted gaps in knowledge
and areas for future research. The ‘back catalogue’ (King et al (2005) ES0127) was used
extensively to review relevant work undertaken between 1990 and 2005 and more recent
work was identified with help from Defra, ADAS specialists and other researchers. The
review is divided into five sectors, dairy, beef, sheep, pigs and poultry and then by impact:
soil, water, air and biodiversity. Sections 2 to 6 summarise the findings of the detailed
literature review in the appendices.

A workshop was held to consider gaps in knowledge and areas for future research, and
representatives from Defra, EBLEX, BPEX and ADAS were present.

The key findings of the review included:

1. The impacts of livestock on the environment are wide ranging. Extensive research
has been dedicated to identifying the issues and developing techniques to limit
negative impacts. The majority of this research has been funded by Government
Departments with responsibility for resource protection (particularly air and water
quality). More recently, there has been increased emphasis on assessing the cost-
effectiveness and cost-benefit of mitigation methods for controlling diffuse pollution
from agriculture to support policy development (Cuttle et al 2006, Defra Project
ES0203, ES0121).

2. Many farmers are already managing their land in an environmentally beneficial way
but there are some considerable environmental challenges ahead, particularly in
reducing air and water pollution (Nitrates Directive, Water Framework Directive).

3. The key issues identified for the more intensive sectors (dairy pigs and poultry)
included loss of nutrients (nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)), sediment and microbial
pathogens to water; gaseous emissions to air (especially ammonia, nitrous oxide and
methane); soil compaction and contamination. Most of the issues are associated
with manure production, storage and handling. Mitigation methods are available to
address many of the issues; however, the challenge remains to more effectively
integrate these into farm production systems with the capital costs of some mitigation
methods being a major barrier (AC0206).

4. Numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs in the UK have fallen in the last decade and this
will have had a positive environmental benefit through reduced emissions to the
environment. However If this decline continues, increased imports of meat and other
animal products could simply export our environmental pollution elsewhere. The
“environmental footprint” of home produced and imported animal products is currently
an area of increased interest (Williams et al 2006).

1
5. Reduced numbers of grazing animals will have a negative effect on many hill and
upland areas with a high risk of undergrazing and loss of biodiversity (already
apparent in Scotland and hill areas of England) . The recent increase in the price of
cereals has persuaded farmers to plough up temporary grassland and cultivate the
land for arable crops as this makes eminent economic sense where soil type and
topography is suitable. The loss of sheep and beef cattle in lowland areas will have a
direct impact on the rural landscape close to many areas of dense population. It
remains to be seen how the public will react to these changes.

6. All livestock systems contribute positively to the environment by their addition of


nutrients to soils and indeed recycling of manures by well managed land spreading
(as opposed to grazing animals) leads to better distribution of nutrients and
potentially a lower risk of nutrient leaching.

7. Systems of dairy production vary widely, but those that are able to effectively control
both the level and quality of inputs would appear to be the most favourable from an
environmental perspective. Zero grazing, where cows are housed all year (although
not always acceptable to the public from an animal welfare angle) gives significant
control, as opposed to ‘extended grazing’ systems that attempt to keep animals
outside for much of the year and rely very heavily on grazed forage (Defra project
NT1902). However greater reliance on machinery has a negative impact.

8. Indoor pig and poultry systems provide good opportunity for control of inputs and
outputs and would seem to present lower risk than outdoor systems of production,
whilst acknowledging public preference for ‘free-range’ eggs and pig meat. Outdoor
pigs pose a significant challenge particularly in terms of soil erosion, but new
research is already underway to develop mitigation methods (Defra project IS0215).

9. Little research has been conducted on the environmental impact of free range poultry
where removal of vegetation and the creation of bare ground (close to the hen
house) lead to a higher risk of soil erosion and localised, heavy deposition of poultry
manure will increase the risk of leaching loss. The impact on biodiversity and local
bird populations has not been studied.

10. For the less intensive sectors (beef cattle and sheep), manure handling and
spreading is much less of an issue as farm yard manure, largely from straw bedded
systems, poses a much lower environmental risk than slurry. Grazing beef cattle and
sheep are fundamental to the management of large areas of upland and hill land and
contribute significantly to the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity, provided
winter grazing (where practised) is adequately managed (BD1228). Further
development of integrated grazing systems, that deliver positive benefits to the
environment, would seem to be the way forward with benefits to landscape,
biodiversity and soil structure.

11. Extensive beef production, (when managed sympathetically with the environment)
although generally inefficient in terms of nutrient use, has a very positive
environmental impact, both in terms of biodiversity and landscape. Intensive cereal
beef production in contrast, is very efficient in terms of nutrient use but adds little
(apart from the recycling of nutrients in the form of farm yard manure) to the
environment.

12. Sheep grazing is a key management tool for maintenance of many sensitive habitats
in upland and hill areas of the UK. Sheep are essential for the management and
conservation of biodiversity (English Nature 2005). There are very few systems of
2
sheep production that would have a significant negative impact on the environment
although winter grazing on forage crops can be high risk if poorly sited or in bad
weather conditions and high stocking rates on sensitive habitats can be detrimental
(Milsom et al 2003)

13. Research across species needs to focus on more precise rationing of livestock
according to age and sex and more accurate assessment of nutrient requirements.
Better characterisation of feedstuffs and the use of feeds with higher levels of
available nutrients (or feed additives that help to achieve this) will help to improve the
efficiency of conversion of feed into animal products. Excretion of surplus N, P and
heavy metals (particularly zinc and copper) is then likely to be significantly reduced
(e.g. Mateos et al 2005, Defra project SP0129).

14. Although many of the feed-related mitigation methods for reducing emissions by
livestock are well known, what is not known is the extent to which they have been
adopted by the livestock sector. Until we have this base-line information, we are
unable to estimate possible reductions in emissions from known technologies
(without having to rely on new research).

15. Mitigation strategies for the abatement of green house gas emissions and nutrient
losses to soil and water include management practices that are already accepted, but
not necessarily widely used. These methods require farmers to improve on current
practice and usually should not require significant financial investment for example
(see Defra project AC0206):

- Managing fertiliser (and manure) nutrient inputs to match crop requirements (using
RB209/PLANET), particularly relevant to intensive grassland systems (dairy and
some beef), poultry and pigs.
- Making full allowance of manure N supply (MANNER).
- Good manure spreading practice, which includes selection of spreading rate,
machinery calibration (assessment of spreader load) and field application records;
- Spreading manure at the appropriate time and under the right conditions.

Further mitigation might also be achieved by:

- Increasing the efficiency of nutrient use by livestock.


- The adoption of anaerobic digestion technology for farm slurries has also been
proposed, but is a high cost approach and there is conflicting evidence about the
risk of emissions of ammonia.
- Making use of improved genetic resources (e.g. more efficient animals and improved
plant breeding). Improved genetics across all species, but particularly cattle and
sheep offers significant scope for improved efficiency in terms of nutrient use and
performance (fertility, longevity, resistance to disease etc) and reduced emissions.

16. Much progress has been made in developing new techniques of manure handling,
better management of nutrients and improved handling and responsible use of
chemicals and veterinary medicines. However, it is not clear to what extent the
industry has taken up many of these techniques. There may also be difficulties in
transferring the information to farmers in a relevant format that would encourage
adoption of the most cost-effective techniques. There is a need to tailor knowledge
transfer to specific livestock sectors and a good example of this might be the ‘best
practice guide for keeping pigs outdoors’ that will be the main outcome from the three
year Defra project IS0215.

3
17. The review has not taken into account the economic sustainability of the livestock
sectors although it is acknowledged that many have severe financial constraints.
Emphasis therefore needs to be placed on mitigation methods that are both simple
and cheap (and perhaps effective against several pollutants) if progress is to be
made in the short to medium term (Cuttle et al 2006, ES0121).

18. The public goods delivered by the livestock industry are difficult to value but ongoing
research using the ‘Ecosystem services’ approach should help to resolve this in the
future (MA).

19. The generic areas identified as gaps in existing knowledge can be grouped under the
broad titles of:

- More precise rationing and feeding – N and P supply in all species, feed additives
(IS0208)
- Survey of feeding practices – to ascertain current base-line practices and guide
future knowledge transfer
- Improved manure management systems – e.g. storage systems, application
techniques/timing
- Better use of improved crop and animal genetics
- Integrated grazing systems – e.g. mixed grazing systems, wintering systems
- Integrated nutrient management systems, taking an holistic approach (i.e.
considering feed inputs, storage and land spreading emissions to air and water) from
feed through to the field.

4
1. Introduction

UK farming contributed £5.6 billion to our economy in 2006, and employs about half a million
people. The total agricultural area in 2005 was 18.5 million hectares, some 77% of the total
land area of the UK. Agricultural land use in the UK is shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 UK Agricultural Land by Use

Land Use Crops and Grass Rough Set-aside Woodland and


bare fallow grazing other land
Hectares (‘000) 4,490 7,204 5,732 513 874
Percent 24% 38% 30% 3% 5%
Defra:June 2006 Census.

Livestock production is an integral part of UK agriculture, and farming has shaped our
countryside over centuries. It provides food in the form of basic commodities like milk, eggs
and meat but also adds considerably to the landscape character and aesthetic value of our
countryside. Farmers and their families form the backbone of many rural communities, and
the farmed landscape provides thousands of hectares of recreational land for people to
enjoy. Domestic livestock play a fundamental part in many diverse ecosystems and provide
a rich genetic resource. The tourist industry for both UK and international visitors relies on
the landscape and diversity of the UK countryside.

The environmental impact of agriculture has been well documented over the years and much
research effort has been directed at minimising the negative impacts whilst trying to maintain
a sustainable industry.

The impacts are both positive and negative and vary from enhanced biodiversity and
landscape to potential for diffuse water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, a
balance needs to be struck between production of high quality, safe food, environmental
impact and the public goods delivered by the industry in terms of agricultural produce and an
environment for all to enjoy.

The strategic outcomes of the Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy include a
commitment to improve the environmental performance of farming by:

• Reducing the environmental cost of the food chain,


• Better use of natural resources,
• Improved landscape and biodiversity.

The livestock sector has particular environmental challenges in dealing with manures (which
represent both valuable resources and potentially major sources of emissions to air and
water) and grazing to enhance biodiversity and maintain a desirable landscape.

The main aim of this report is to present the overall environmental impact of the livestock
sectors on soil, air, water and biodiversity as evidenced by a wide variety of research
projects carried out over the past two decades. The risk of potentially negative impacts tends
to increase with the intensity of production, while the positive impacts of livestock tend to
increase where inputs and stocking densities are in balance with outputs and with the ability
of soil and vegetation to support them. However a well managed, intensive system can have

5
much less of an impact if the inputs and outputs are strictly controlled. For some systems of
livestock production, indoor operations offer greater opportunities for optimising the balance
between inputs and outputs, thereby reducing waste. Also, increasing the intensity of
production means that inputs associated with the maintenance of livestock are spread over
greater output, and therefore emissions per unit of output (milk, meat or eggs) are reduced.

This project will support the Defra vision:

‘To develop a profitable and competitive domestic industry which enhances the biodiversity
and rural landscape of England while minimising its impact on climate change, soil, water
and air quality. Such an industry will contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of our
food production and consumption at home and abroad’.

This work will help to clarify the future role of the livestock industry in delivering public goods.

1.1 Project Methodology

The project has reviewed existing and on-going work that provides evidence on the
environmental effects of the major sectors of the livestock industry (dairy, beef, sheep, pigs,
eggs, and poultry meat). The reviewers concentrated on work carried out between 1990 and
2007, and used the ‘back catalogue’ (King et al 2005 ES0127) extensively, as an initial
source of information.

The areas of environmental impact included in this work were:

• Soil - to include livestock manure recycling and heavy metal inputs.


• Air - to include ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Water - to include nutrient (i.e. nitrate, ammonium and phosphorus), oxygen depletion
and microbial pathogen pollution.
• Biodiversity and landscape.

Once the scientific review was complete a seminar was organised (with representatives from
ADAS, Defra, EBLEX and BPEX) to help identify the gaps in knowledge and areas for future
research.

The report is delivered in five sections by species, and by environmental impact. A summary
of the impacts, mitigation and gaps in knowledge is given in the main body of the text, in
section 2, whilst the detailed scientific review is provided in the appendices (1-4).

1.2 Background

The population of the major livestock categories in the UK is shown in Table 1.2 and a
pictorial representation of livestock density across the UK is shown in Figure 1.

6
Table 1.2 Population of Livestock in the UK, 2000 to 2006.

‘000 head 2000 2002 2004 2006


Dairy Cows 2,336 2,227 2,129 2,066
Beef Cows 1,842 1,657 1,739 1,733
Breeding Ewes 20,448 17,630 17,664 16,637
Breeding Sows 648 558 515 468
Poultry Layers 29,895 28,778 29,662
Poultry Broilers 105,689 105,137 119,912
Defra June Census.

The drop in numbers of ruminants between 2000 and 2002 was mainly due to the 2001 Foot
and Mouth outbreak but for pigs this was due to swine fever in 2000, the outgoers scheme
and then FMD. The table shows a steady decline in livestock numbers in the UK between
2000 and 2006 (with the exception of poultry). As this decline continues there will be an
increasing impact on food supply and the landscape of the UK. The decline in pigs since
2002 has been caused by wasting disease, increased costs of production (as a result of
decreased output) and the influx of cheap imports.

7
Figure 1.1 UK Livestock Numbers per 100 km2 for Poultry (top left), Sheep (top right),
Cattle (bottom left) and Pigs (bottom right). Source: Government Census, 2004.

8
The maps show clearly that pig production is now concentrated in the east of the country,
whilst the density of sheep is particularly high in Wales and northern England. Cattle are
widespread but largely concentrated in the West. Poultry are more widely distributed across
the whole country but with relatively few in Wales and Scotland.

Areas of intense livestock production are associated with significant environmental risk (soil
erosion, atmospheric emissions, diffuse water pollution etc) and farmers need to take every
precaution to protect the local environment.

The UK livestock industry generated £7,351 m of output in 2006. Output by product is


shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Output from the UK Livestock Industry (2006).

£m/year

Meat
Cattle 1,568
Pigs 687
Sheep 702
Poultry 1,315
Other animals 175

Products
Milk 2,501
Eggs 357
Wool 16
Other 30
Total 7,351

1.3 Potential Impacts on Soil and Water

The forms of pollution of concern for livestock production systems include nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P) and organic nutrients as BOD; sediment; heavy metals used in feed
supplements; pathogens (measured as faecal indicator organisms - FIOs), and veterinary
medicines. It is estimated that agriculture accounts for around 60% of nitrate pollution and
25% of phosphorus pollution in the water bodies of England. Pollution incidents are
declining as farmers take on new legislation and adjust farming practices.

Environmental protection legislation includes the Nitrates Directive and Water Framework
Directive, which limit nutrient enrichment of water bodies, in particular nitrate and
phosphorus, the causes of eutrophication. Ecological thresholds of P in water bodies are
very low (ca. 100 µg/l) in relation to P application rates to land, and in comparison to the 50
mg/l threshold for nitrate concentrations in drinking water, under the Nitrates Directive.
Losses of N to water can be as much as 100 kg/ha from the most intensively managed
grassland systems, whereas losses of P are typically <2 kg/ha. Pathways of pollutant loss
include surface runoff, and subsurface loss via drainage to groundwaters, and via lateral
movement (including tile and mole drains) to surface water systems. Specific aspects of the

9
NVZ Action Programme are intended to reduce the risk of loss of N associated with livestock
production.

Phosphorus (P) is predominantly associated with sediment, and the two should therefore be
considered together in respect to their impacts on water quality (mean annual suspended
sediment concentrations of 25 µg/l are specified in the Freshwater Fish Directive). However,
where soil phosphorus status is high, P may also be lost in solution.

FIOs include E. coli, viruses, and Cryptosporidium, and manure-borne pathogens can impact
on bathing water quality and shellfish beds (EU Bathing Waters and Shellfish Directive E.coli
limit 2000 cfu/100ml). Heavy metals (e.g. copper and zinc) in feed supplements, and
veterinary medicines are associated with manures and slurries from grazing and housed
animals, and therefore the loss of these to the wider environment can have implications for
soil function and the chemical and ecological status of water bodies.

Nitrate leaching is governed by a combination of the magnitude of the nitrate pool originating
from all sources (i.e. fertiliser, atmospheric deposition, soil N reserves, and N deposited in
applied animal manures and slurries), and the risk of leaching (which is a function of soil
type, management, and weather conditions determining rainfall distribution and drainage
volumes). Research has shown clearly that nitrate leaching from grassland is related to
livestock N inputs (NT1902).

Around 90 million tonnes of manures (45% solid, 55% liquid) per year are generated as a
result of livestock production and require land application in the UK. Over 80% of this
originates from dairy and beef systems. Livestock manures are applied to 16% of UK tilled
land and 48% of the UK grassland. The management of this manure therefore has a strong
influence on the magnitude of the N, P and pathogens vulnerable to loss to water systems
via drainage or surface runoff. In contrast, although grazing and outdoor animals also
represent potential sources of nitrate leaching, the risk of such transfers is generally smaller
(e.g. concentrations of < 2.5 mg/l in drainage waters from grazed grass in Rowden (IGER
experimental site in Devon) receiving up to 400 kg N/ha (NT1902)) unless there are summer
storms or there is direct access of livestock to streams.

Although much of the research has focused on the risk of pollution from livestock manures
and slurries, it should be recognised that, with appropriate management, there is a
substantial positive benefit in applying livestock manures (and sewage sludge) to land. This
is an energy-efficient approach, which recycles and utilises the available nutrients. This
reduces dependency on chemical fertilisers and, hence, also reduces the emissions (C and
N) associated with their manufacture. Moreover, alternative outlets or disposal options for
manures are few (i.e. dumping of sewage sludge at sea is prohibited; landfill is expensive
and declining; incineration is only a practical option for certain manure types (e.g. poultry)).
Manure processing options are very limited and although there is continued interest in the
potential for energy production from anaerobic digestion, the residue must still be applied to
land.

1.4 Potential Impacts on Air

UK emissions of GHG include 554,200 kt of C02, 128 kt N20 and 2348 kt CH4 (Defra 2007).
Agriculture accounts for 67% of the N20 emissions (62% from direct soil emissions and 32%
from indirect emissions by N deposition and nitrate leaching) and 37% of CH4 emissions
(86% from enteric fermentation in ruminants and 14% from decomposing waste manures
and slurries). The agriculture, forestry and land management sector contributes only 1% to
total UK CO2 emissions, including emissions and sequestration.

10
As part of the Kyoto Protocol the UK has agreed a reduction of 12.5% in GHG by 2012.
Defra project AC0206 has reviewed the research to identify best practice for reducing GHG
from agriculture and land management. Table 1.4 shows the relative split of total agricultural
methane emissions by livestock sector.

Table 1.4 Summary of 2005 Agricultural Methane Emissions (MtCO2e)

Sub-sector Waste Enteric Total


Dairy 1.1 4.5 5.6
Beef 0.7 7.5 8.2
Sheep 0.1 3.5 3.6
Pigs 0.3 0.1 0.4
Poultry 0.3 0.0 0.3
Total 2.5 15.6 18.1
Source: IGER (2006)

Table 1.5 shows the total N20 emissions by livestock sector.

Table 1.5 Summary of 2005 Agricultural Nitrous Oxide Emissions (MtCO2e)

Sub-sector Total
Dairy 4.4
Beef 6.0
Sheep 4.4
Pigs 1.4
Poultry 1.8
Arable 7.9
Total 18.1
Source IGER calculations in (Defra 2007)

Emissions of ammonia and oxides of nitrogen increase acidification and nutrient enrichment
of ecologically sensitive habitats. An estimated 80% of the 320 tonnes of annual UK
emissions of ammonia originate from agriculture, mainly from the production and
management of livestock manures and slurries, as well as the spreading of nitrogen
fertilisers such as urea. Of the manure component, around 30% originates from spreading
manures to land, 25% from animal housing, 9% from “hardstandings”, with the remainder
from manure storage (11%) and outdoor grazing areas (10%) (Misselbrook et al, 2006).

Losses to air from livestock include ammonia (predominantly from dairy, beef, and pig
slurries), methane (largely from cattle and sheep), and oxides of nitrogen resulting from the
denitrification process. Losses of ammonia and oxides of nitrogen tend to be greatest from
surface applied materials (urine from grazing or housed livestock, surface-applied slurries
etc), with a 5% increase in ammonia emissions for each 1% increase in slurry dry matter
content for surface applied slurries. Higher slurry dry matter contents limit infiltration, and
increase the risk of surface capping. Relevant regulations include the National Emissions
Ceiling Directive, the Air Quality Daughter Directive, the UNECE Gothenburg protocol, and
the IPPC Directive (which affects large pig and poultry units only) and the need to introduce
Best Available Technology (BAT) where possible. These directives specifically affect
livestock housing and attempt to minimise potential pollution whilst maintaining livestock
welfare. Mitigation options include low emission spreading techniques, covers for slurry and

11
manure storage, and reducing the protein content in livestock feeds to improve the efficiency
of N utilisation..

The NARSES model (AM0101, AM0113, AM0133) is now used to estimate national
ammonia emissions from agriculture, and has been used to demonstrate the most cost-
effective abatement measures (Webb et al,2006). These include covering poultry manure
stores, replacing urea fertiliser with ammonium nitrate, the rapid incorporation of manure and
slurry into arable land by discing and allowing cattle slurry storage to crust over.

The Air Pollution Information System (APIS) has been developed in partnership by the UK
conservation agencies and regulatory agencies and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
APIS is a support tool for staff in the UK conservation and regulatory agencies, industry and
local authorities for assessing the potential effects of air pollutants on habitats and species.
As such, it aims to enable a consistent approach to air pollution assessment across the UK.
Other potential users include non-governmental organisations, universities, students or
anyone interested in finding out more about air pollution effects on wildlife.

1.5 Biodiversity and the Countryside

Grazing livestock are a crucial element of our landscape and about 80% of our countryside
has been shaped by farming (National Trust 2001). 25% is semi natural habitat maintained
by grazing animals (Countryside Survey 2000).

8% of England’s land area is designated as National Parks and 15 % as Areas of


Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). These areas are protected by law, to ensure
conservation and enhancement of their natural state and they are often referred to as
"protected landscapes". Both National Parks and AONBs have their origins in the same post
war movements to protect the countryside and were given protective designation under the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) to conserve and enhance their
natural beauty. AONB have been described as the jewels of the English landscape. There
are 36 AONBs in all.

National Parks are extensive areas each with their own managing authority to conserve and
enhance their environment, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the
understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the general public. National Parks
provide their 110 million annual visitors with the opportunity to explore some of England's
most dramatic and remote landscapes. The parks are living and working landscapes with an
increasing focus on supporting the communities and economic activities that underpin their
existence. There are 8 National Parks in England plus the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, which
has equivalent status. Most National Parks and AONBs depend on livestock grazing for
their maintenance.

Grazing livestock affect biodiversity in pastures through the creation and maintenance of
sward structural heterogeneity, particularly as a result of dietary choice. Differences between
domestic grazing animal species and their impact on grazed communities can be related to
differences in dental and digestive anatomy and to differences in body size (see appendix for
further details e.g. 1.4.2.1 and 2.4.1). Differences between breeds within species are
relatively minor and again largely relate to body size (Rook et al. 2004). One virtually
ubiquitous aspect of grazing is that it leads to increased plant diversity compared to no
grazing (Hill et al., 1992; Bullock & Pakeman, 1997; Humphrey & Patterson, 2000).

Sheep and cattle are essential for recovering and maintaining favourable condition of a wide
range of grazed habitats. For example, around half of the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan

12
(BAP) Habitats are considered dependent upon grazing by livestock for their conservation
(Bullock & Armstrong 2000). However, the appropriate species, timing, density and related
management practices are crucial (English Nature 2001). In practice, these are seldom in
place by default (i.e. unless there is an explicit objective to conserve the habitat) and the
wrong grazing management can be as damaging as no grazing management. English
Nature state that undergrazing is now as much, if not more, of a problem than overgrazing
with 530 SSSIs covering 21,000 ha undergrazed and 190 SSSIs totalling 130,000ha
overgrazed (English Nature 2005), it can be difficult to strike the right balance.

Production from grassland is markedly improved by reseeding, regular fertilisation, liming


and artificial drainage of wet sites and is often necessary for cost effective production from
grazing livestock. Stocking rates and cutting frequency are higher and more homogeneous
swards do not support a wide variety of wildlife. It could therefore be argued that intensive
production should be concentrated in certain areas (whilst abiding by all relevant legislation)
and extensive production for conservation objectives should be supported in other areas.
Certainly environmental stewardship schemes aim to enhance natural resources in the
agricultural environment.

The preservation of species-rich grassland is a primary goal of nature conservation. Grazing


at a low stocking rate has the potential to facilitate the restoration of diverse swards and to
support reasonable individual performance of the grazing animals (Isselstein et al. 2005).
Grazing by animals usually results in greater plant species richness; the sward is kept open
allowing the establishment of forb species in the gaps (McCracken & Tallowin 2004).
However, too little or too much grazing can both have an adverse effect on species diversity.

Heather moorland in Britain is a priority BAP habitat considered to be internationally


important and its retention a high conservation priority (Thompson et al. 1995). 75% of the
world’s remaining heather moorland is found in Britain, but the area has diminished
dramatically over the past 50 years (The Moorland Association). The current area of
moorland in England and Wales is estimated at 7,790 and 6,360 km2 respectively. Heather
moorland was created by and for grazing and its retention is dependent upon grazing as a
management tool.

Hedgerows are an integral part of a pastoral landscape and their creation and maintenance
was entirely due to the part they played in the management of livestock. England has lost
more than half its hedgerows since 1947, which is more than 200,000 miles of hedgerow.
Between 1947 and 1985, over 4,300 miles of dry stone walls were lost, with 96% of the
remaining walls in need of restoration at that time.

The majority of hedges today were planted during the enclosures of the 18th and 19th
centuries. Some 200,000 miles of hedges were planted between 1750 and 1850. As a
wildlife habitat, hedges occupy more land than all of our nature reserves put together. The
introduction of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Countryside Stewardship,
together with legislation to prevent further removal of hedgerows have helped to halt the
decline in hedgerows and given farmers financial assistance to restore old hedges and plant
new.

As well as being valued landscape features, hedges offer feed, shelter and nesting sites to a
variety of wildlife and their linear form renders them useful as wildlife corridors (Andrews &
Rebane, 1994). The removal of hedgerows, and hence sources of pollen and nesting sites
reduces bee populations (Buchmann & Ascher, 2005) and butterflies (Hill et al. 1995).

13
1.6 Valuing the Environment and Livestock Farming?

Those involved in managing and working the land believe inherently that our landscape
needs to be farmed and maintained largely as it is now. The patchwork of fields with a
mosaic of different crops, the hedgerows, the animals and the buildings all create the
English landscape we all know. But is this landscape and the ‘services’ provided by it valued
by the general population? Haines-Young & Potschin (2007) suggest that ‘perhaps only in
developed societies, where most people are no longer working directly with the resources
provided by the land, sea and air, do they need reminding of the importance of the benefits
that nature provides’? The Curry Report (2002) previously highlighted the need for farmers
to reconnect with their consumers, to tell people how their food is produced and to raise the
‘value’ of locally grown food in the public perception.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has stimulated widespread international


debate about the importance of the links between ecosystems and human well-being. The
Ecosystem Approach is an evolving framework of ideas designed to help decision-makers
take full account of ecological systems and their associated biodiversity. ‘Ecosystem
services’ is an idea that is currently being widely promoted to emphasise the benefits that
ecological systems provide to people, and the impact that systems based on biological
diversity have in maintaining the quality of peoples lives. Defra currently has a series of
projects looking at developing an ecosystem approach for the UK.

The value of ‘landscape’ to the general population is very difficult to assess but researchers
at MLURI have developed a ‘Virtual Landscape Theatre’ to test various landscapes on
members of the public. If livestock numbers are to continue to decline then our landscape
could look entirely different over a number of years. Rank vegetation and scrub could
encroach in hill and upland areas with eventual return to forest. The changed environment
may not appeal to UK taxpayers and public surveys have demonstrated the public’s
willingness to subsidise farming to maintain the landscape in a desirable state. One study
carried out by Eftec for Defra (Johns et al 2006) attempted to estimate the value of changes
in environmental features associated with the Severely Disadvantaged Areas of England
which could arise from a change in policy for the LFA. The project used a choice experiment
stated preference approach together with contingent valuation. The analysis revealed a
certain ‘willingness to pay’ of £49 to £105 per household per annum for a worst to best case
scenario.

We know from public attitude surveys that a high proportion of the population values the
rural environment. Most respondents say that they would support paying farmers to
regenerate threatened landscapes or habitats.

The Northern Ireland Red Meat Industry Task Force: Strategy Review 2007 has
revealed that the red meat industry in NI is currently generating a loss of over £200
m per annum when full production costs are included. There are many, very small
producers (80%) with beef herds of less than 30 cattle. The review has concluded
that there is no economic case for long-term Government financial support to
subsidise suckler-origin beef or hill sheep production: any case for Government
support would therefore need to be based on other considerations. The hill
landscape of NI is therefore likely to deteriorate unless environmental scheme
payments are sufficient to sustain it. Similar reports have been produced for areas
of Scotland and England (e.g. Lewis & Beetham, 2006) where significant concern
has been expressed about the future of hill and upland areas of the country.

14
2. Dairy Farming Systems

For further, more detailed information, refer to Appendix 1.


Key Issues Identified

• Improved handling and management of slurry and manures to minimise losses of


nitrogen, phosphorus and organic nutrients to water and ammonia and greenhouse gas
emissions.
• Efficient use of fertiliser and manures to optimise grass/crop performance and minimise
unnecessary use of chemical fertiliser inputs.
• Efficient production (fertility etc) to maximise output and reduce non-productive stock.
Increased focus on longevity and health to improve the efficiency of production overall.
• Improved rationing to optimise capture of nitrogen, phosphorus, and trace elements to
help minimise losses to the environment
• Better planning of grass and maize production and grazing systems.

2.1 Public Goods Delivered

The dairy industry provides:

• Rural employment, directly on dairy farms, mainly west and south west of England and
borders of Scotland.
• Rural /urban employment in milk processing and production plants, feed manufacturing
factories and abattoirs.
• Cattle grazing and slurry spreading sustains soil organic matter and enhances the
physical properties of soil, including fertility.
• Spreading of slurry and FYM is found to be beneficial to earthworms, which support a
large ecosystem of birds.
• Muck pats in fields provide food and shelter to a wide range of invertebrates and hence
food for birds.
• Dairy farms tend to incorporate hedges and dry stone walls as divisions of fields and
hence contribute to the landscape character of the countryside. Hedges contain broad-
leaved trees, plants, birds, insects and mammals.
• Dairy production supports dependent ecosystems - bacteria, fungi, insects, beetles, birds
and mammals
• Dairy cows make use of by-products from the food industry e.g. distillers products, waste
bread, potatoes, rapeseed meal etc and will be a depository for by-products of biofuel
production in the future.

2.2 Environmental Impacts of Dairy Farming Systems

2.2.1 Potential Negative Impacts

The factors listed below indicate possible negative effects of dairy farming activities but the
extent to which these happen on farm is not well documented. The Defra Farm Practices
Survey (2007) provides some information on manure management and on measures to help
maintain water quality and limit soil erosion. The England Catchment Sensitive Farming
Delivery Initiative and the Environment Agency also provide limited evidence but more
detailed information is required to quantify the effects more accurately.

15
Soil
(see appendix 1.1 for detail)

• Grazing, slurry spreading, maize production and harvesting, and heavy traffic during
silage making can cause soil erosion and compaction. When soil is compacted there is
reduced infiltration of water that can lead to water run off and soil erosion. Yields are also
reduced thus decreasing the efficiency of other inputs to the system.
• Maize growing for silage (see appendix 1.1.2.3) increases the risk of soil erosion
especially where harvested in wet conditions and if grown on slopes. Bare soil (low
vegetation covers) during the early part of the growing phase increases erosion risk.

Potential effects on soil ecology

• Microbial and invertebrate activity and hence degradation of cow pats can be reduced by
the presence of veterinary medicines e.g. avermectins.
• Veterinary medicines can potentially impact on insect and beetle populations, which in
turn can impact on local bird and mammalian populations (e.g. Chough - Pyrrhocorax
pyrrhocorax and Greater Horseshoe Bat - Rhinolophus ferrumequinum).
• The cumulative increase in soil zinc levels arising from its inclusion in livestock diets or in
veterinary medicines may ultimately lead to a small negative impact on rhizobial activity.

Water
(see appendix 1.2 for detail)

• Potential for nitrogen, phosphorus and pathogen loss to water.


• Potentially significant risk of pollution from manure produced at grazing and also slurry
spreading. The risk is related to stocking density and, in particular, to the timing and rate
of slurry spreading.
• High (up to 250 – 300 kg/ha) fertiliser use on grassland in spring and summer months
can potentially affect the balance of fungi and bacteria in soil, and can increase the risk
of nitrate leaching if the nutrients applied in manure are not taken into account. However,
the risk of nitrate leaching on grassland is normally lower than that on tillage land.
• Risk of contamination with pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals (e.g. strong cleaning
agents used in dairies).
• Silage effluent is considered to be a small risk. It is categorised as a point source
pollutant, which is associated with clearly defined discharges and will often be avoidable,
with correct system design and good management practice.
• Dairy cattle have a huge demand for water, for drinking and parlour wash down. With an
average consumption of >90 litres per day, the dairy herd in England is using in excess
of 120 million m3 of water for livestock drinking and cleaning purposes alone.

Air
(see appendix 1.3 for detail)

• Ammonia loss (from housing, from grazing and from manure spreading) and re-
deposition can lead to the acidification and nutrient enrichment of sensitive habitats (e.g.
lowland heath), leading to losses in biodiversity.
• Cattle farming accounts for the largest emission of ammonia, representing 53% of total
agricultural emissions. Following excretion by grazing cattle, or the application of
manures to the soil surface, typically 10-60% of the readily available (i.e. ammonium) N
is lost to the atmosphere by ammonia volatilisation.
• The total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) content of fresh FYM is typically c. 25%, but only c.
10% after it has been stored, as a result of emissions, N transformations and
16
immobilisation in microbial protein during storage. As a consequence, ammonia
emissions are greater when fresh FYM is spread on land.
• Methane emission as a result of microbial fermentation in the rumen. Breeding dairy
cows produce about 15 kg CH4/head per year. CH4 is also lost from slurry storage
through anaerobic decompostion. The dairy sector accounts for about 37 % of CH4 from
livestock.

Biodiversity
(see appendix 1.4 for detail)

• Ryegrass and ryegrass/clover swards lead to reduced biodiversity compared to more


mixed swards.
• Intensive grazing leads to reduction in pollen and nectar, reducing food for insects and
birds and offers a poor nesting habitat.
• Silage cuts are taken 2 or 3 times per year from one field, which does not allow seed
production and can potentially damage habitats.

2.2.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts (Dairy farming)

A wide range of mitigation methods have been widely researched and put to the industry and
many have been adopted. However the number of dairy farmers using these methods and
hence the size of the overall impact has not been adequately assessed. The Farm Practices
Survey and the British Survey of Fertiliser Practice provide some information but this is not
adequate to provide totally reliable evidence.

The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) estimated that the amount of nitrogen
supplied in compound feeds and concentrates to dairy cows in 2005 was 71,012 tonnes,
which represented a 12.5% reduction since 1999. Over the same period, however, dairy cow
numbers declined from 2.44 million to 2.065 million (a 15.4% reduction). At face value, these
data would suggest that for dairy cows at least there was a slight increase in N intake/cow
over this period, (which might be associated with the increase in productivity per cow).
However, no information is available on the N content of the forages consumed, which
account for more than 50% of the total dry matter consumed by dairy cows, and therefore it
is not possible to estimate changes in N intake by dairy cows.

The mitigation methods listed below are referenced where possible according to where they
currently appear in the literature e.g. if a method appears in one of the Codes of Good
Agricultural Practice it is referred to as CoGAP. The uptake of the methods by farmers is
variable and no accurate assessment of uptake has been made.

Reducing soil compaction/erosion

• Minimise impact on soil by management of feeding and drinking points if possible (Cuttle
et al., 2007).
• Reduce field stocking rates when soils are wet (Cuttle et al., 2007). Of those holdings
that have taken livestock related steps to maintain water quality 65% would keep stock
off ground to avoid poaching – FPS 2007.
• Use of tracks to minimise compaction on walkways (Defra ES0121).
• Spread slurry when dry and when, as a result of timing and crop growth stage, nutrient
recovery is most effective (CoGAP – Water; Chambers et al, 1999; Chambers et al,
2001).

17
• Avoid growing maize on steeply sloping land and on sensitive soils. Where practical (i.e.
on simple, moderate slopes) (Defra 2006b), cultivate across the contours, not up and
down the slope (Defra 2006b, Defra ES0203).
• Use early maturing varieties of maize and avoid harvesting maize and grass in wet
conditions (Defra 2006b).
• Undersow maize with a nurse crop or select an appropriate cultivation technique for
compacted soils post-harvest, under suitable conditions (Defra 2006b, Defra ES0203).
• Put in place controlled traffic systems to minimise damage (Jagoa et al., 2007).
• Reduce the excretion of zinc and copper through lower levels of supplementation (and
possibly use chelated trace elements in animal diets). This is already controlled by
legislation and is likely to be reduced further in future.

Reducing nutrient/chemical/pathogen loss to water (see appendix 1.2.1)

• Restriction of timing and loading of applied manures and slurries with high available N to
land (avoid applications in autumn/winter - NVZ Action Programme proposals August
2007 extend this to cover all soils, not just freely draining soils; extended “closed
periods” where slurry cannot be spread). Many farms now have a nutrient management
plan and over 40% of holdings used the Entry Level Scheme to do this (FPS 2007).
• Transfers of N and P (and hence pathogens) following recent manure applications are a
major issue for wetter, grass-dominated areas such as Wales and SW England.
Reducing the frequency of reseeding operations, careful management (rate and timing)
of manure applications and the incorporation of manures into the soil as soon as
possible after application, will reduce the runoff risk and minimise ammonia losses
(Chambers et al, 1999).
• Do not apply slurry to steep slopes etc, or when the soil is wet or frozen (of those
holdings that have taken livestock related steps to maintain water quality 81% are not
spreading slurry at high risk times, FPS 2007) (CoGAP – Water)
• Correct setting of slurry spreading bout widths (NT1415, NT2002) and increased use of
manure analysis data, e.g. by sampling and analysis, or using on-farm estimates (slurry
N meters, hydrometers). Also, assessment of manure spreader loads (ES0139). These
measures would improve the targeting of manure N applications to land with the resulting
reduced risks of pollution to both water and air (implied in CoGAP – Water).
• Limit slurry applications to reduce the risk of surface runoff (50 m3/ha) (CoGAP – Water).
• There is evidence that cattle raised on organic farms produce manure with lower total N
contents compared to conventional farms (5.2 and 6.3 kg/t respectively (Anon, 2006:
OBS03 report)), as no chemical fertilser is used, and hence reduce issues associated
with N loadings from manures and the risk of pollution to water and air (Organic Farming
Scheme and Organic Entry Level Scheme).
Collect all runoff from hard standing areas, woodchip pads etc, this will reduce the potential
risk of pollution to water (CoGAP and Defra WA0804).
• Line all slurry stores to achieve compliance with IPPC legislation and reduce leakage to
water (Beyond IPPC legislation).
• Reduce dietary nitrogen supply to dairy cows while improving dietary balance by using
improved protein characterisation. There is some evidence that the diet can affect (a) the
partition of N between urine and faeces and (b) the solubility of P in the manure of dairy
cows. Changes in the source of both of these nutrients could have an effect on N and P
losses to water.
• Reducing the length of the grazing day and/or the grazing season; and adopting zero
grazing can potentially mitigate the risk of water pollution arising from dairy and beef
systems (ES0203 and NT2511), provided that suitable precautions are taken to minimise
losses from the additional slurry produced.

18
Prevent direct access of livestock to water courses, periodic movement of feeding troughs to
reduce poaching risk. Fencing off river banks to prevent cattle access can substantially
reduce bank erosion (sediment), and riverine inputs of nitrate (urine, faeces) and
pathogens (Defra ES0121 and ES0203). This is now included within Environmental
Stewardship options and capital grants within Catchment Sensitive Farming priority
catchments.
• Establishment of ungrazed, unfertilised buffer strips at the edges of fields, and the
construction of retention ponds/wetlands downstream of the agricultural area, are both
effective mitigation methods for reducing pollution from cattle systems reaching primary
river systems (Environmental Stewardship). Of those agricultural holdings that have
taken measures to maintain water quality 38 % are using buffer strips (FPS 2007).
• Ploughing out grass in autumn releases up to 70 kg N/ha: reseeding should be
undertaken early in spring so as to maximise the use of the N released by mineralisation
and thereby reduce the potential for nitrate leaching (Defra NT0602 and NT1312). Re-
seeding in the spring also reduces the risk of soil structural damage.
• Avoid routine use of wormers and other anti-parasitic medicines and target drugs
appropriately.
• Plant breeding studies are underway to reduce the level of phosphorus in herbage hence
reducing P intake by dairy cows.

Reducing gaseous emissions to air (see appendix 1.3)

• Use the appropriate crop N requirements as recommended in RB209/PLANET (CoGAP


– Water)
• Make full allowance of manure N supply (MANNER) (CoGAP – Water)
• Spread manure at appropriate times/conditions (CoGAP – Water)
• Allow crusting of slurry stores, e.g. by bottom filling (there is evidence to suggest that
80% of cattle slurry stores are crusted) to reduce gaseous emissions (Smith et al, 2007),
or fit lid or floating cover.
• Rapid incorporation of surface applied slurries and manures also substantially reduces
ammonia loss (WA0711) (CoGAP – Air).
• Spread slurry using direct injection or band application methods to minimise emissions
(CoGAP – Air).
• Controlled anaerobic digestion of cattle and pig slurry enables the resulting methane to
be collected and used as fuel to produce electricity/heat, which has the added benefit of
reducing CO2 emissions by limiting the need for fossil fuels (Recommended in CoGAP –
Air; encouraged in new NVZ Action Programme Rules).
• Improve the efficiency of nutrient use in cow diets
• Make use of improved genetic resources – livestock and forages
• Increasing the proportion of concentrates/reducing forage in ruminant diets results in
changes in rumen fermentation and reductions in methane emission.
• Maintaining high levels of feed intake will increase the rate of passage through the
rumen, which reduces production of methane.
• Incorporation of slurries with straw and bedding (FYM) can reduce leaching risk (by the
inclusion of a carbonaceous substrate) and can reduce ammonia emissions (CoGAPs).
• For fertilised grass systems, move from using urea to alternative fertiliser types (such as
ammonium nitrate), as this reduces the potential loss from ammonia volatilisation (Defra
NT26 projects).

19
2.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Dairy Farming)

2.3.1 Nutrition (many of the research needs also apply to beef and sheep)

• The appropriate supply of rumen degradable protein is thought to be reflected in milk


urea nitrogen (MUN) concentrations. Information on MUN is now available to almost all
UK dairy farmers. Research methods for its use as an indicator of dietary nitrogen
balance could be developed in the UK (already used in the USA). Reducing excess
nitrogen excretion could lead to potentially reduced ammonia emissions.
• Undertake a national survey of feeding practices – so that scope for further reduction in
nitrogen output (and other nutrients) may be ascertained.
• Reduce dietary P concentrations: This requires greater confidence in either estimates of
P requirements or in P supply, or both. This strategy can have a significant impact on P
excretion, but needs to be undertaken with caution. Since inorganic P is not now widely
added to ruminant rations, reductions in overall P content could necessitate changes in
the types of concentrate used. Further research is needed to assess the practical
implementation of these strategies.
• Feed additives: Ruminants are ideally suited to consume and digest forages, yet CH4
production is greatest on high forage diets. Because of this, considerable research effort
– in the UK and world-wide - is being devoted to identifying feed additives that act as
CH4 inhibitors for inclusion in high-forage diets. A number of additives have been
developed which have reduced CH4 emissions in the short term, but rumen adaptation
appears to reduce the long-term benefits. There is a need for a better understanding of
ways of reducing methanogenesis in a safe and consistent manner. This is the subject of
the recently commissioned Defra Research Project AC0209.
• Research has been undertaken, principally in Australia, on the development of anti-
methanogenic vaccines to reduce CH4 emissions. Further research is needed to
establish long-term efficacy.
• Crop breeding: Recent research at IGER suggests that an increase in water-soluble
carbohydrate in perennial ryegrass leads to a reduction in CH4 production (Lovett et al.,
2006). A successful programme of genetic improvement of forage grasses and legumes
has led to the development of high-sugar grasses, and the potential for these to reduce
CH4 output will be explored in Defra project AC0209.
• Recent research suggests that the microbial ecosystem in the rumen may be reflected in
the fatty acid profile of milk fat. Additional studies are needed to elucidate and verify the
relationship between specific milk fatty acids and CH4 production, if proven valid, this
would provide a useful and non-invasive tool to study changes in CH4 losses.
• Better definition of nutritional requirements is needed, to take account of new genetics,
production systems, interactions between feeds etc.
• There is a need for a better understanding of the factors affecting the bioavailability of Cu
and Zn in feed materials, together with developments of rapid and cost effective methods
of analysis. This would allow rations to be formulated where supply more closely
matches requirements, thereby reducing the need for large safety margins that have
traditionally been used in diet formulation.
• There is also a need to review and measure the extent and impact of heavy metals,
pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals excreted on soil, water, air and biodiversity.
• A review is needed of the future supply of feeds to industry, changes due to new crops,
pressure from demands for biofuel production, world trade and climate change.
• Ideas from New Zealand of feeding excess salt to cows to reduce urine hotspots and the
development of a nitrification inhibitor bolus need to be reviewed to assess their
application in the UK. .

20
• An educational programme is required to persuade dairy farmers and their advisors that
reducing P levels in diets to 0.45% will not have long-term adverse effects on dairy cow
fertility.
• Research is needed to understand the effects of different dietary constituents on the ratio
of soluble and insoluble P in manure.

2.3.2 Slurry Systems

• Improved quality and amount of information on farm practices (i.e. farm activity data) is
needed, via further development of existing (e.g. Farm Practices Survey, British Survey
of Fertiliser Practice) and new survey approaches – to improve the accuracy and
reliability of catchment models and national inventories of emissions and to better inform
policy decisions on environmental protection strategies.
• Further development of software programs capable of informing/assisting decisions
across the spectrum of livestock production and manure management systems is
needed. These can provide information to encourage the uptake of better technology or
management practices that can reduce environmental emissions.
• Options for reduced cost slurry storage – a soil stabilisation technique, involving lining of
soil pits with a cement-based compound appears to offer a reduced cost slurry storage
option (capable of meeting EA requirements for very low permeability). There is an
urgent requirement for investigation and, pending success of the technique,
demonstration – as a result of the new minimum capacity (22-26 weeks storage for cattle
and pig slurry) and <2 year period for compliance, from NVZ AP (Nitrate Vulnerable Zone
Action Programme) implementation.
• Review of livestock slurry for anaerobic digestion, within fully integrated farm systems,
including a wide-ranging and robust life-cycle analysis.

2.3.3 Soil Compaction and Erosion

• The geographical extent of soil compaction in grasslands is unknown. Remote sensing


techniques may be able to contribute.
• How does soil compaction relate to stocking densities in different regions?
• What effect does soil compaction have on soil micro- and meso-fauna?
• Defra project SP0413 is attempting to use fallout radionuclide (i.e. Cs-137)
measurements to provide national scale data on rates of soil loss from agricultural land
in England and Wales. This will help to inform soil loss rates on different types of
agricultural land in England.

2.3.4 Veterinary Medicines in Soil

• Typical concentrations of veterinary medicines in soil following slurry spreading in


England and Wales are not known. Research to date has been limited to laboratory
studies on establishing degradation rates in soil and eco-toxic threshold concentrations.

21
3. Summary of Impacts - Beef Farming Systems

For further information, refer to Appendix 1.

Key issues identified:

• Improved handling and management of manures as for the dairy sector.


• Efficient production (fertility etc) to reduce numbers of unproductive stock and minimise
losses. Improved breeding to select for disease resistance and longevity of suckler
cows.
• Evaluation of alternative out-wintering options (e.g. wood chip or straw-bedded pads)
which appear to offer potential to reduce environmental emissions as well as reducing
farm costs.
• Improved accuracy of rationing, to improve efficiency of nutrient use including trace
elements.
• Development of integrated grazing systems to the benefit of biodiversity.

3.1 Public Goods Delivered

The beef industry provides:

• Rural employment, directly on farms, over all of UK including upland areas, where
employment opportunities are lower.
• Rural /urban employment in abattoirs and meat processing plants, feed manufacturing
factories, hauliers and livestock markets.
• Support of dependent ecosystems - bacteria, fungi, insects, beetles, birds and mammals
• Extensive cattle grazing is a vital tool in maintaining some important wildlife habitats.
• Beef cattle are fundamental to maintaining the landscape in areas of Special Scientific
Interest, AONB, National Parks and also upland and hill areas in general. They also
feature in lowland parkland and river meadows and undulating land unsuitable for
cropping.
• Maintenance of cultural and local heritage with a wide range of traditional breeds.
• Beef cattle can utilise unimproved pasture and at correct stocking rates increase the
biodiversity of the sward. Cattle are especially valuable for controlling tough and coarse
vegetation, encouraging a more diverse sward, which encourages invertebrates and
birds, and in managing wet grassland, important for waders.
• If hay is used for feeding, hay meadows are only cut once per year, after bird chicks
have hatched. This supports flowers, seeds, insects and bird ecosystems.
• Cattle reduce unwanted scrub and bracken by trampling in areas of unimproved grazing
and moorland.
• The correct stocking rates of cattle on moorland areas promote heather growth and
hence butterflies and other insects.
• At very low stocking rates cattle are beneficial when grazed in woodland as they create a
more diverse woodland structure.
• Grassland systems and the manure produced by livestock sustain the soil organic matter
and can potentially enhance the physical properties of soil, including fertility.
• Well managed recycling of slurry and FYM is found to be beneficial to earthworms, which
support a large ecosystem of birds.

22
• Muck pats in fields provide food and shelter to a wide range of invertebrates and hence
food for birds and bats.
• Beef farms tend to incorporate hedges and dry stone walls as division of the fields.
Hedges support a wide range of flora and fauna and their linear form provides wildlife
corridors.
• Beef cows and growing cattle make use of by-products from the food industry e.g.
distillers products, brewers grains etc, and waste from biofuel production.. The nutritional
requirements of beef cattle are lower than high producing dairy cows and so they can
make use of lower quality waste products.

3.2 Environmental Impacts of Beef Farming Systems

3.2.1 Potential Negative Impacts (Beef farming)

Soil
(see appendix 1.1 for detail)

• Soil compaction and erosion, caused by grazing, and particularly outwintering, at high
stocking rates, manure spreading and silage making. When soil is compacted aeration
and filtration rates are reduced leading to water run off and erosion. Compaction is of
less concern than with dairy cattle, as cattle are not moved for daily milking.
• Supplementary feeding areas can cause problems of localised compaction and nutrient
runoff if close to water courses, particularly a problem for outwintered animals.
• Microbial and invertebrate activity and hence degradation of cow pats can be reduced by
presence of veterinary medicines e.g. avermectins.
• Low levels of zinc in slurry/FYM, as a result of feed supplementation and use in
veterinary medicines and from foot bathing, where cumulative additions of zinc can lead
to a suppression of rhizobial activity in the soil. Zn reduces the ability of rhizobia to fix
atmospheric nitrogen for plants.

Water
(see appendix 1.2 for detail)

• Risk of water pollution from nutrients and pathogens from excreta produced at grazing
and also from slurry spreading. Slurry produced often has higher dry matter content than
that of dairy cows, because of the absence of washdown water addition from yards and
dairy.
• Water contamination risk with pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals.

Air
(see appendix 1.3 for detail)

• Cattle (dairy and beef) production accounts for the largest emission of ammonia,
representing 56% of total UK agricultural emissions. Although emissions from beef cattle
are lower than for dairy cattle since 96% of beef finishers and 81% of suckler cows are
kept on straw bedded systems as opposed to slurry systems for manure handling. 74%
of dairy cows are kept on a slurry system (FPS 2007).
• Cattle on high forage diets produce large amounts of CH4. The beef sector accounts for
approximately 45% of agricultural CH4 emissions and represents the highest contribution
to total methane of all the livestock sectors. (See Table 1.4).

23
Biodiversity
(see appendix 1.4)

• Where silage cuts are taken 2 or 3 times per year from one field, this does not allow
seed production and can potentially damage habitats.

3.2.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts (Beef farming)

A wide range of mitigation methods have been widely researched and put to the industry.
However there is no simple means of assessing the extent to which beef farmers have
adopted these approaches and, hence, the size of the overall potential impact. The Farm
Practices Survey provides some information.

Reducing soil compaction/erosion

• Minimise impact on soil by moving feeding and drinking points if possible and keeping
them well away from watercourses (Defra ES0203, Cuttle et al., 2007).
• Reduce field stocking rates when soils are wet, particularly in outwintered stock (Defra
ES0203 and CoGAP - Soil).
• Use of tracks to minimise compaction on walkways (Defra ES0121).

Reducing nutrient/chemical/pathogen loss to water

• Avoid spreading slurry and FYM at high risk times (i.e. when there is a high risk of run-
off; when soils are wet or cracked; or late in the growing season) (CoGAP – Water).
Restrict slurry applications to periods with favourable soil conditions and crop growth
stages where nutrient recovery is most effective (CoGAP – Water; Chambers et al, 1999;
Chambers et al, 2001).
• Avoid harvesting grass for hay or silage in wet conditions (CoGAPs) and put in place
controlled traffic systems to minimise damage.
• Fencing off river banks to prevent cattle access can substantially reduce bank erosion
(sediment), and riverine inputs of nitrate (urine, faeces) and pathogens. This is now
included within Environmental Stewardship options.

There are many more mitigation points which are the same as for dairy production. Please
refer to the mitigation section for dairy (appendix 2.2.2).

3.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Beef farming)

Please refer to gaps in knowledge and future research needs in the dairy section that gives
details about nutrition and slurry systems (see appendix 2.3).

3.3.1 Biodiversity

• A review of methods/incentives to promote mixed farming in the lowlands, to help


enhance the benefits of beef and sheep production is needed. This should complement
the intensive dairy and arable systems.
• Further development of methods of restoration for overgrazed land, to restore the
depleted biodiversity of grassland habitats is needed.

24
• There is a need to assess areas where there is undergrazing and review policies to
restore sustainable stocking rates.
• There is a need to review the most suitable methods for peat restoration and the best
grazing policies to maintain their ecosystems. Defra project SP0565 aims to address this
issue.

3.3.2 Environmental Emissions

• Woodchip pads provide an important alternative to conventional buildings and concrete


yards for overwintering beef cattle at potentially reduced cost. Whilst research has
demonstrated some production, health and welfare benefits to stock, information of the
potential reduced risks of environmental emissions (to air and water) are, as yet poorly
quantified and understood. These aspects are being addressed by a SLP LINK research
project (LK0676), starting October, 2007.
• More recently, there has been very strong interest in the use of straw bedded corrals, for
out-wintering cattle without the production of slurry. These are temporary enclosures
established on field sites without removal of soil, with the estimated cumulative depth of
FYM of 0.5 – 1.2m, cleared and spread following the removal of cattle. Whilst this
approach appears to offer an alternative to the high costs of extending slurry storage,
where this may now be required under the revised NVZ Action Programme proposals, an
assessment of the potential environmental emissions (including possible benefits) is
urgently required.
• As in dairy cattle, there is an urgent need for improved quality and amount of information
on farm practices (i.e. farm activity data); to improve the accuracy and reliability of
catchment model estimates and national inventories of emissions and to better inform
policy decisions on environmental protection strategies.

25
4. Summary of Impacts - Sheep Farming Systems

For further information, refer to Appendix 2.

Key issues identified

• Increased efficiency of production and reduced numbers of unproductive stock. This


would include enhanced genetic selection for efficiency.
• Improved ration formulation to ensure efficient capture of nutrients.
• Development of integrated grazing systems that deliver positive benefits to the
environment.

4.1 Public Goods Delivered:

The sheep industry provides:

• Maintenance of the landscape.


• Grazing management of sensitive habitats – hill and upland but also some lowland.
• Rural employment (declining) but associated businesses, markets, abattoirs, feed
merchants, pharmaceutical companies etc depend on the sheep sector for some of their
business.
• Sheep pastures tend to have higher soil organic matter than tillage land.
• Improved biodiversity under controlled grazing. Maintenance of some valuable short-
sward habitats supporting some rare species.
• Maintenance of field boundaries – hedges and stone walls as stock-proof fencing
allowing wildlife corridors and supporting biodiversity.
• Grazing to manage valuable archaeological sites.
• Improved soil pH on improved land, reducing the mobilisation of aluminium through soil
acidification and Al enrichment of water sources. Aluminium is toxic to life. Where sheep
are reared, rough grasslands are often improved by spreading lime. This increases the
pH, reduces soil acidity and reduces Al concentrations in the water.
• Maintenance of cultural heritage with a wide range of sheep breeds and systems of
production e.g. North Ronaldsay, Cotswold, Greyface Dartmoor etc.

4.2 Environmental Impacts of Sheep Farming Systems

4.2.1 Potential Negative impacts

Soil
(see appendix 2.1)

• Soil erosion – overgrazing, grazing root crops, around feeding areas.


• Soil compaction can have a significant impact on flood risk at a local level.
• Veterinary medicines – residues in faeces and impact on invertebrates and soil micro-
organisms and the associated ecosystems.

Water
(see appendix 2.2)

• Nitrate losses per unit area are much lower than from dairy and beef systems, but the
absolute area stocked by sheep in England and Wales is larger.
• Limited impact of nitrogen fertiliser as much less applied than for cattle systems.

26
• Direct contamination of natural watercourses with faeces and urine, occasional run off
from hardstanding areas.
• Sheep dip – occasional pollution of watercourses – much reduced impact through
legislation and enforcement and better advice to farmers (see appendix 2.4.6).

Air
(see appendix 2.3)

• Ammonia emissions from grazing sheep are estimated to be around 5% of the total from
UK agriculture (similar to the 4% from grazing cattle).
• Sheep produce CH4 that represents about 20% of agricultural CH4 emissions (see Table
1.4).

Biodiversity
(see appendix 2.4)

• Overgrazing (in the past) and destruction of some sensitive habitats. As sheep numbers
have fallen and agri-environment schemes have been adopted, this is a diminishing
problem and undergrazing is likely to have a greater impact on biodiversity in the future.
If left ungrazed, grassland (moorland and hill) will develop into scrub with regeneration of
trees and reduction in species diversity.

4.2.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts (Sheep farming)

• To reduce N and P leaching from sheep grazing avoid pasture improvement on upland
and peat sites (already adopted).
• Select more efficient sheep in terms of reduced emissions, disease resistance, efficiency
of nutrient use etc
• Sheep dipping is heavily regulated with certificates of competence and dip disposal
licensing (Ground Water Authorisations and CoGAP - Water). There has been a great
effort to inform farmers of safe use and disposal of spent dip and pollution incidents from
sheep dip in 2006/7 have been very few (Merriman 2007 personal comm). An enzyme
that deactivates Diazinon has just been launched on the market. The increased use of
injectable products for control of sheep scab has accelerated the reduction in pollution
incidents.
• Veterinary medicine residues in faeces are likely to have been reduced significantly as
farmers become more aware of the safe use of veterinary medicines and they take on
the SCOPS principles of worm control (to worm only when necessary and to use a
specific drug not a blanket treatment) (Abbot et al 2004).
• Research at Pontbren in Wales has shown that planting tree shelter belts across a slope
can reduce the risk of lowland flooding (by providing a high water infiltration rate area
next to potentially compacted grazing areas and reducing volumes of storm event runoff)
and also provide cover for sheep during inclement weather

4.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Areas for Future Research

• Better definition of nutritional requirements for protein and trace elements are needed.
Current estimates of requirements for sheep in the UK are outdated, and do not take
account of new breeding/genetics or methods of production (Robinson, 2002).
• In sheep housed indoors and fed with different legumes (lucerne, sulla, red clover,
chicory and lotus), CH4 losses were reduced by between 20 and 55% as compared to

27
animals grazing ryegrass/white clover mixtures (Ramirez-Restropo & Barry, 2005). This
needs further investigation.

• Further research is underway at IGER focused on identifying the genetic variation


underlying ‘environmental sustainability’ traits which have the potential to decrease CH4
(and nitrogen) emissions per animal and per unit output. These include development of
forage varieties with elevated levels of condensed tannins. Condensed tannins help to
increase N utilisation. There is also evidence that they have anthelmintic properties.
• Further development of integrated grazing systems that will help to enhance biodiversity.

28
5. Summary of Impacts - Pig Farming Systems

For further information, refer to Appendix 3.

Key issues identified

• Improved handling and management of slurry and manure.


• Improved management of outdoor pigs to reduce impacts on soil erosion and
compaction. Assessment of wider environmental impact of outdoor pigs.
• Improved efficiency of nutrient use of feedstuffs, e.g. phase feeding for nitrogen and
opportunities to reduce phosphorus use and improve efficiency of P utilisation via
increased use of dietary phytase.

5.1 Public Goods Delivered

The pig industry provides:

• Rural and semi-rural employment on pig farms.


• Rural/urban employment in abattoirs, meat processing plants, animal feed factories and
associated suppliers.
• Pig production uses a large range of co- and by-products from food and allied industries
– helping to reduce food waste.
• Recycling of manure and slurry can potentially increase soil organic matter levels, which
can in turn improve soil physical and chemical fertility and reduce the need for chemical
fertilisers for cropping.
• Extensive ‘free range’ pigs can keep down rough pasture and control unwanted plants
such as bracken.
• Outdoor pig production also contributes significantly to soil nutrient reserves, which can
reduce the need for fertiliser inputs for subsequent crops.

5.2 Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming Systems

5.2.1 Negative Impacts

Soil
(see appendix 3.1)

• Soil compaction and erosion can be high in poorly managed outdoor systems or
following unusually high rainfall. Unless stocked at low levels or moved frequently, pigs
will remove all vegetation and will create dust/water bath areas.
• The remaining sow population and grower pigs are housed and therefore any soil
compaction is associated with the actual spreading of slurry onto land.
• Low levels of zinc in slurry/FYM can contribute to potentially toxic levels following
cumulative build up in the soil which may have a negative impact on rhizobial activity in
the soil.
• Soil and water contamination risk with heavy metals and antimicrobial drugs from slurry
spreading and outdoor pigs. Outdoor pigs potentially contribute more as they are in a
confined area.

29
Water
(see appendix 3.2)

• Research evidence has shown that nitrate leaching after pig slurry applications can
represent 13% of the total N applied in pig slurry, compared to 15% of broiler litter but
only 1% of cattle FYM (with its lower available N content).
• Leaching beneath manure heaps can be a substantial pathway for pollution to water
bodies. There is a risk of pathogen transfer to water, as result of point source and diffuse
pollution associated with manure storage and land application operations.

Air
(see appendix 3.3)

• Ammonia losses from pig housing (9% of total UK agricultural ammonia emissions)
depend on how the manure is managed, ventilation and the amount of litter on the floor.
Livestock type has a pronounced effect on N2O emissions, with pig manure emitting ten
times the loss from a deep pit laying hen house, and five times the amount from an
equivalent amount of cattle manure.
• Mean ammonia emissions from buildings with housed pigs have been found to be
around 35% greater from straw-based compared to slurry-based (fully-slatted)
management systems
• Dust from indoor systems is attributable to the handling of bedding, feeding (often on the
floor) and straw muck systems.
• Indoor pig units are associated with odour, at its greatest during mucking out.
• There is a relatively low risk of pathogen spread by air – mainly associated with dust
particles and bioaerosols, including virus particles and bacterial pathogens.
• Noise can be an issue for people living near to pig farms, however in one study it was
found that the causes of nuisance noise were attributable to vehicle movements rather
than to animals.
• Decomposition of pig manure contributes about 2 % to agricultural CH4 emissions.

Biodiversity
(see appendix 3.4)

• Very little is known about the effects of outdoor pigs on biodiversity. In the area where
outdoor pigs are kept, all ground vegetation can be destroyed which will affect
invertebrate and bird populations.
• Ammonia emissions close to pig buildings can acidify the surrounding area and change
the habitat but the extent of this is not known (but could be predicted using atmospheric
dispersion modelling and established emission factors).

5.2.2 Mitigation of Negative Impacts (Pig farming)

Outdoor systems:
• Establish good vegetation cover before stocking and plant species that pigs do not like to
eat (this is now a cross compliance issue).
• Use fields for 2 years maximum and have them as part of a cereal rotation (Cross-
compliance).
• Use persistent grass types suited to the locality.

30
• Adjust stocking rates or rotate pigs according to soil type and condition. Maintain
stocking rates at <25 sows per hectare (Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendation).
• Avoid steep areas and areas near water courses (CoGAP – Water and Cross
Complience).
• Consider nose ringing the sows to minimise rooting about and destroying the vegetation
(Welfare issue).
• Consider positioning of wallows and huts and move regularly (Industry Guidance).

Indoor pigs:
• Line all slurry stores to achieve compliance with IPPC legislation and plan adequate
capacity to reduce risk of overflows to water bodies (beyond IPCC legislation).
• Cover slurry stores or promote store crusting (addition of chopped straw) to reduce
gaseous emissions (ammonia) and odour problems (Smith et al., 2007), and thereby
increase the potential utilisation of the available N by vegetation.
• Ammonia losses can be further reduced by using a partly-slatted rather than a fully-
slatted system (as the non-slatted floor area covering 50-75% of the pen acts as a
physical barrier between the air below the slats and air circulating in the house). This
evidence suggests that a Dutch-style partly-slatted system presents the best opportunity
to reduce ammonia losses from pig buildings.
• To limit potential pollution from pig manures apply the same principles as for cattle: e.g.
restrictions of timing and loading of applied manures and slurries with high available N to
land (avoid applications in autumn/winter - NVZ Action Programme proposals August
2007 extend this to cover all soils) (Defra ES0203; CoGAP – Water; and NVZ rules).
• Improved manure handling and incorporation soon after spreading (CoGAP – Air).
Application techniques provide significant potential for reducing ammonia emissions, with
broadcast spreading associated with the largest ammonia loss. Although band
applications provide significant scope for reducing emissions following slurry application,
the potential for emission reduction from pig slurries using band application techniques in
the UK is less than for cattle slurry, due to the very dilute nature of a high proportion of
pig slurry, which is already associated with relatively low emissions (WA0715;
Misselbrook et al, 2004).
• Whilst the dilution of pig slurry provides a benefit in terms of reduced ammonia
emissions following land spreading, the same high dilution imposes an increased cost on
slurry storage, handling and spreading and associated increased risk of water pollution.
Attempts should be made to reduce the addition of water from drinker and mains
leakages, wash water addition and yard run-off (CoGAP – Water; ES0203; WU0102;
WU0101).
• More extensive use of synthetic amino acids to help reduce the N content of diets and
reduce N excretion.
• Use dietary enzymes to improve overall digestibility of the diet.
• Phytase enzymes are widely used in pig diets to maximise use of available P and reduce
P excretion (ES0203).
• Select feeds of higher P bioavailability. (Plant breeders are working on this aspect).
• Keep animals in groups matched to age and sex although this can create stress when
separating animals. Groups should be matched up post weaning and kept in those
groups wherever possible from then on. Phase feed to improve the match of the diet to
the growth stage of the animal (ES0203).
• Reduce levels of mineral supplementation if possible and use feeds of higher
bioavailability of copper and zinc, e.g. chelated metals.
• Research has found the use of shelter belts reduces the high concentrations of ammonia
reaching downwind locations, and may be particularly suitable when such units are in
close proximity to ecologically sensitive areas or population centres (as this approach will
minimise both the risk of acidification and odour). Ammonia emissions can typically be
31
reduced by 13% from slurry stores and 3% from land-spread fields through the use of
shelter belts (WA0719).

5.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Pig farming)

• Increase in the number – and reduction in the cost - of synthetic amino acids as a result
of technological developments – including the development of genetically modified
micro-organisms. This is likely to be largely industry driven.
• Cost effective methods of estimating feed digestibility (particularly amino acids), and the
synergistic effects of different ingredients need to be investigated.
• A national survey of feeding practices (to scope for further reduction in N output and
other nutrients) needs to be carried out.
• Many feed producers and livestock farmers are reluctant to reduce dietary P
concentrations because of uncertainty over the available P concentration. Rapid and
cost effective methods of estimating available P content of feeds would provide greater
confidence to reduce safety margins.
• Little is known about the localised effects of outdoor pig herds, in terms of N and P, and
impacts on the environment. Work is needed in this area.
• Ongoing research is quantifying the use of shelter belts of woodland vegetation adjacent
to outdoor pig units in promoting the local deposition of N compounds (ammonia etc) and
thereby limiting odour issues and atmospheric transport over longer distances.
• The substantial dilution of pig slurry in the UK industry is not consistent with known
drinking water requirements of pig production, current understanding on sensible wash-
down water requirements and likely leakages from drinkers. This implies significant
added costs for pig producers for water charges and additional handling and storage
costs. This suggests the need for a systematic water audit on a range of pig producers,
to establish the cause of the high dilution and identify ways of economising on water use
and reducing associated risks of water pollution.
• As in cattle, there is an urgent need for improved quality and amount of information on
farm practices (i.e. farm activity data); to improve the accuracy and reliability of
catchment model estimates and national inventories of emissions and to better inform
policy decisions on environmental protection strategies. The use of remote sensing
survey techniques would be particularly useful to understand extent and distribution of
outdoor production.

32
6. Summary of Impacts - Poultry Farming Systems

For further information, refer to Appendix 4.

Key issues identified

• Improved handling of manures.


• Improved efficiency of nutrient use.
• Assessment of environmental impact of free range poultry
• Improved abatement of dust.

6.1 Public Goods Delivered

• Free range - landscape, sheds and rangelands


• Rural and semi-rural employment
• Employment in feed industry, abattoirs, transport, processors etc.
• Regular additions of large quantities of poultry litter to land can potentially increase soil
organic carbon levels and improve soil fertility.
• 670,000 tonnes of poultry litter are incinerated in power stations. According to the British
Poultry Council around 75% of the chicken litter produced is now incinerated to generate
electricity (although our own experience suggests this latter estimate is too high).
• Possible positive impact on vegetation growth where suitable range is provided for free
range poultry, but this is likely to be a very small land area.

6.2 Environmental Impacts of Poultry Farming Systems

6.2.1 Potential Negative Impacts

Soil
(see appendix 4.1)

• Soil compaction is mainly restricted to the spreading of poultry litter and manure and is of
relatively low importance compared to effects from cattle
• At the field level, zinc inputs from layer manure are higher than those from any other
livestock manure. While heavy metal inputs occur from broiler litter, they are
considerably lower than those from pig and layer manure.
• Free-range layers can potentially remove vegetation and cause soil compaction and
erosion in isolated areas. However, any damage to soil structure may be offset by the
reduced amount of manure that has to be spread to land. Within the free-range sector,
soil erosion may potentially occur across approximately 9,000 hectares but generally in
very localised areas.
• The use of anticoccidials in poultry production may potentially have an impact on soil
microbiology

Water
(see appendix 4.2)

• Poultry litter has a significant available N content, and is therefore at relatively greater
risk of nitrate leaching following application to land (compared to low available N content
materials such as cattle FYM).
• Leaching and runoff beneath manure heaps can be a substantial pathway for pollution to
water bodies
33
Air
(see appendix 4.3)

• Ammonia losses from poultry housing depends on manure management, ventilation, and
the amount of litter on the floor. Odour nuisance and ammonia emissions can be an
issue close to poultry sheds if the litter is damp and when poultry muck is spread to land.
• The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory estimates that housed broilers produce
30% of the total fine dust emissions in the UK but it is unlikely that emissions from
intensive broiler farms in the UK would result in an exceedance of the air quality
objectives.
• There is a relatively low risk of pathogen spread by air – mainly associated with dust
particles and bioaerosols, including virus particles and bacterial pathogens.

Biodiversity
(see appendix 4.4)

• Very little is known about the effects of free range poultry on biodiversity.
• Ammonia loss (from poultry manure) and re-deposition can lead to the acidification and
nutrient enrichment of sensitive habitats (e.g. lowland heath), leading to losses in
biodiversity.

6.2.2. Mitigation of Negative Impacts (Poultry farming)

• To limit potential pollution from poultry manures apply the same principles as for cattle
and pigs: e.g. restrictions of timing and loading of applied manures with high available N
to land (avoiding applications in autumn/winter - NVZ Action Programme proposals
August 2007 extend this to cover all soils) (Defra ES0203; CoGAP – Water; and NVZ
rules).
• To limit ammonia emissions keep litter dry and use wood-shavings as opposed to straw
and nipple drinkers rather than bell drinkers (CoGAP – Air).
• In layer production, frequent removal of manure from house via scraper or belt systems,
greatly reduces ammonia emissions and in-house ammonia concentrations, improving
environment for birds and workers (CoGAP – Air).
ƒ Similarly, in-house drying of manure using fans, possibly with polythene ducting,
stabilises the uric acid content of layer manure and, hence, rate of breakdown and
release of ammonia (CoGAP – Air). This provides the extra benefit of improving N
recovery in crops following land application of manure and reducing ammonia emissions
following land application (WA0638; Smith et al, 2001).
• More extensive use of synthetic amino acids to help reduce the N content of diets and
reduce N excretion (Mateos et al 2005).
• Phytase enzymes are widely used in poultry diets to maximise use of available P and
reduce P excretion (ES0203).
• An ongoing research project (AC0104) is looking at emissions and abatement of dust
from poultry houses in order to make a full assessment of the human health implications
of poultry dust. AC0104 will look at emerging abatement techniques to

6.3 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research Needs (Poultry)

• Measurements of ammonia emissions associated with free-range production – until


recently the emission factor (EF) for surface applied layer manure was adopted within
the UK Ammonia Emissions Inventory (UKAEI), though this is thought likely to be an
34
overestimate and was reduced in the latest inventory estimates, on the basis of
extrapolation from other data (Smith et al, 2001).
ƒ Increase in the number – and reduction in the cost - of synthetic amino acids as a result
of technological developments – including the development of genetically modified
micro-organisms.
ƒ Development of rapid, cost effective methods of estimating feed digestibility (particularly
amino acids), and the synergistic effects of different ingredients.
ƒ Undertake a national survey of feeding practices – so that scope for further reduction in
N output (and other nutrients) may be ascertained.
• Little is known of the localised effects of free-range (FR) poultry in terms of N and P,
ammonia emissions and impacts on biodiversity. FR poultry tend to stay in their sheds
unless the range offered affords some shelter and ‘cover’. The rapid increase in FR
units encouraged by the impending ban on battery cages could impact on the
environment in close proximity to the poultry sheds. There will be an increase in free-
range only if producers with hens currently in conventional laying cages choose to
replace these with FR units and not enriched laying cages. (If they move to FR rather
than enriched cages, the effect of this expansion will be more marked in some areas
than others as it is very difficult to get planning permission for new units in certain areas).
These effects need to be quantified.
ƒ Many feed producers and livestock farmers are reluctant to reduce dietary P
concentrations because of uncertainty over the available P concentration. Rapid and
cost effective methods of estimating available P content of feeds would provide greater
confidence to reduce safety margins.

Research needs common to Pigs and Poultry

ƒ Better definition of amino acid requirements is needed to improve ration formulation.


• Development of crops with low phytate-P content would assist in reducing dietary P
concentrations, but the use of transgenic pigs and poultry capable of secreting phytase
enzymes is unlikely to be acceptable to consumers of pig and poultry meat and eggs, at
least in the short to medium term.
ƒ Research is ongoing by feed additive manufacturers to develop phytase additives with
greater efficacy under a wider range of conditions, for use in non-ruminant rations.

35
7. Overall Gaps in Knowledge Common to all Livestock Sectors

• Rapid flow through drainage systems in cracking clay soils is difficult to control and can
represent a major pathway for loss of N, P and other pollutants (e.g. sediment,
pathogens) to water bodies. Tracer studies have shown that the majority of this
sediment and nutrients are surface-derived. Further work to explore different mitigation
options to attenuate the sediment and nutrient loss are needed to limit pollutant loss by
this pathway and hence maximise the retention of sediment and nutrients within the
farming system.

• Improved accuracy in rationing livestock (particularly ruminants) so that inputs can be


more carefully controlled and targeted and outputs minimised. This could generate
significant benefits in the efficiency of utilisation of nutrients.

• Continued developments in animal genetics to improve efficiency in breeding and food


conversion.

• Continued efforts to develop integrated grazing systems to the benefit of biodiversity and
animal production.

ƒ In all livestock categories, there is an urgent need for improved quality and amount of
information on farm practices (i.e. farm activity data); to improve the accuracy and
reliability of catchment model estimates and national inventories of emissions and to
better inform policy decisions on environmental protection strategies. The use of remote
sensing survey techniques would be useful to understand the increasing extent and
distribution of outdoor pigs and free-range poultry production for both layers and broilers.
Similarly there is an urgent need for representative and accurate data on feeding
practices across all sectors; this information would provide a valuable contribution to
current EU and Defra initiatives to develop a methodology for estimating regional nutrient
balances (Defra Farming Statistics, York).

• Better definition of trace element requirements, to take account of new genetics,


production systems, interactions between feeds etc., and a better understanding of
factors affecting the bioavailability of Cu and Zn in feed materials.

• Research has shown that remote sensing (airborne, satellite) has the potential to be
used to help identify locations (e.g. outdoor pig units) and ground conditions (e.g. bare
soil in poached areas). Such applications are of relevance for catchment
characterisation of landscapes (e.g. for Water Framework Directive or Habitats Directive
purposes), for regulatory enforcement, and for advice/support purposes.

• Farmers lack guidance on how to optimise manure and slurry spreading given available
equipment (tanker capacity etc), field areas, staff time, slurry volumes, and compliance
with environmental regulations (NVZs, GAEC etc). Further work developing the ADAS
SPREADS software tool (the prototype developed under NT1421 has already been used
successfully in a number of projects, including some work outside the UK) would enable
advisers to minimise costs by optimising the efficient application of manures and slurries
(and thereby limit the risk of environmental pollution).

36
8. Current Defra Funded Projects

The list below shows a range of Defra projects currently underway that will report in the next
few years and should provide valuable information to underpin policy in the future.

Dairy and beef cattle

AC0209 - Ruminant nutrition regimes to reduce methane and nitrogen emission


AC0406 - The optimisation and impacts of expanding biogas production - £306,759 -2006-
2010
LS3310 - Reducing the wastage in the dairy herd - £321,092 - 2003-2008
LS3639 - Use of the dairy cow metabolome in plasma and milk to improve health, fertility,
and nutrient utilisation for milk production - £577,500 - 2002-2007
OF0372 - Nutrient efficiency, milk quality and pathogen control on low-input and organic
dairy farms incorporating home-grown alternative forage crops. - £255,993 - 2006-2009
OF0382 - Minimising medicine use in organic dairy herds through animal health and welfare
planning - £49,276 - 2007-2010
LS3408 - A comparison of mainstream and at risk cattle breeds for the management of the
hills and uplands - £275,929 - 2004-2009
LS3523 - Healthiness and quality of beef produced from traditional and modern breeds
reared in species-rich, unimproved grasslands - £834,478 – 2004-2008
LK0676 – Improved design and management of woodchip pads for livestock overwintering -
£610,900 – 2007 – 2010.

Pigs
LK0973 - Development and evaluation of low-phytate wheat germplasm to reduce diffuse
phosphate pollution from pig and poultry production units - £385,287 - 2006-2010
LS3657 - Increasing nitrogen retention in saleable meat to benefit the environment and
improve eating quality in pigs - £603,460 - 2004-2007

Sheep
LS3407 - Optimal grazing management systems for sheep and beef cattle in the hills and
uplands - £1,452,307 - 2004-2009
LS3656 - Optimising nutrition to increase carbon and nitrogen capture in ruminant products -
£953,922 - 2004-2009
VM02504 - Management of the Environmental Inputs and Risks of Cypermethrin-based
Sheep Dips - £97,745 – 2007-2008
WQ0121 - Upland agriculture – balancing productivity, water and soil quality - £15,107 -
2007-2008
WQ0124 - Land management options for improving water quality in the uplands - £13,382 -
2007-2008

37
Poultry
AC0104 - Emissions and abatement of dust from poultry houses - Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, ADAS UK Ltd., Royal Veterinary College, Health & Safety Laboratory: 2006-2009

Livestock Manure
AC0406 -The optimisation and impacts of expanding biogas production - £306,759 -2006-
2010
ES0116 Field work to validate the manure incorporation volatilization system (MAVIS) -
£900,331 2002-2007
IF0114 - The development of a fertiliser recommendation system - £380,000 - 2006-2008
IF0133 - Data resources for the Fertiliser Information System - £45,277 - 2007
SP0530 - Organic Manure and Crop Organic Carbon Returns - Effects on Soil Quality (Soil-
QC - £988,476 - 2004-2009
WQ0103 - The National Inventory and map of livestock manure loadings to agricultural land
(Manures-GIS) - £200,088 - 2007-2008
WQ0118 - Understanding the behaviour of livestock manure multiple pollutants through
contrasting cracking clay soils - £799,358 – 2007-2008
LK0988 – Improved assessment of nutrient content in farm manures and biosolids using
Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) - £857,513 – 2007 – 2010.

AC0102 - Animal welfare and ammonia emissions. ADAS and IGER.


The overall objective of the project is to produce an inventory of ammonia emissions for UK
agriculture for each of the years 2005 and 2006, required as the major part of the total UK
ammonia emissions inventory for annual submission to the EC under the National Emissions
Ceilings Directive. The project looks at the effects that welfare regulations may have on
ammonia emissions.

Soil Erosion
PE0120 - Phosphorus mobilisation with sediment and colloids through drained and
undrained grasslands - £801,919 - 2005-2008
SP0413 - Documenting soil erosion rates on agricultural land in England and Wales - Part 2
- £414,227 - 2005-2008

Veterinary Medicines
CB02047 - Desk study to review environmental risks from marketing GM veterinary and
human medicines - £54,962 – 2007

Integrated Farm Management

IFO124 Integrated Farm Management (IFM) -Development of an integrated management


framework and approaches for livestock farming systems. 2007-2010.

38
The overall objective is to provide information on IFM that farmers can use to improve their
contribution to biodiversity and landscape management at the same time as maintaining, or
even improving, their economic sustainability

The project is being led by IGER with input form other staff at BBSRC on ruminants and
forage production, with pig and poultry expertise provided by ADAS.

39
Review of the Scientific Literature

APPENDIX 1

Environmental Impacts of Dairy and Beef Farming

1.1 Soil

Dairy and beef systems can potentially have negative impacts on soil compaction through
trampling, manure spreading, maize production, and silage making. Much will depend on
how the production system is managed. Compaction can lead to reduced production (and
reduced efficiency of use of other inputs), surface run-off and soil erosion. Soil microbial
activity and the degradation of cow pats can potentially be inhibited through the addition of
veterinary medicines, such as avermectins. Small additions of zinc in slurry and FYM may
also have an impact on Rhizobia activity.

1.1.2 Soil Compaction and Erosion

Housing dairy cattle is commonplace, whereas in some beef systems, livestock are outdoors
for much of the winter (Anon, 2002a). Hence, there is the potential for these animals to
cause more compaction than dairy cattle, despite having lower stocking densities.

Within dairy and some beef systems, there can be heavy reliance on conserved maize and
other forage. Growing maize can increase the risk of soil compaction and cause significant
erosion in certain situations (Withers and Bailey, 2003). However, forage maize is a
palatable, high-energy silage that can improve efficiency and reduce N output when
compared with a purely grass diet.

1.1.2.1 Grazing

All livestock can potentially cause significant soil compaction, especially when stocking rates
are high and soils are wet (Angell and Phillips, 2006). Compaction tends to increase with
increasing livestock density. However, soil conditions and soil type are also crucial in
determining the degree of compaction and sward degradation (Stewart and Pullin, 2006).
The risks of compaction therefore increase at the beginning and towards the end of the
grazing season when soils tend to be wetter (Patto et al., 1978; Heathwaite et al., 1990) –
see Figure A1.1.

Any trend towards increased stocking rates, but particularly extended grazing, can increase
the risk of soil compaction from dairy cattle. In an extended grazing system, using fields
around the farmstead for calving may potentially increase compaction risk.

Overgrazing and trampling by stock can decrease surface infiltration by up to 80%


(Heathwaite, 1989; Mulholland and Fullen, 1991). Pietola et al. (2005) have also shown that
cattle trampling at a drinking site on loamy soil reduced infiltration rates by 80% compared
with undisturbed pasture.

Soils can act as effective sinks or sources for methane. Soil compaction can reduce the
ability of soils to act as sinks for methane (Sitaula et al., 2000). In grassland systems, the
contribution of these effects is very small in comparison with the methane produced directly
or indirectly from grazing animals. For example, grassland swards might take up 1.5-2.8 g
methane carbon/ha/day whereas livestock emissions are more typically 17.9 and 74.5 g
methane carbon/ha/day from lambs and calves respectively (CC0206).
40
Jorajuria et al. (1997) showed that soil compaction can reduce dry matter yields of annual
rye grass and white clover by 18-74%. Soil compaction can restrict the access of roots to
both water and nutrients, but the majority of deeper soil compaction (15-60 cm depth) is
caused by machinery (Batey and McKenzie, 2006). Compaction by livestock tends to be
restricted to the top 0-15 cm of soil. However, grazing combined with compaction at 10-30
cm depth from tillage under ryegrass can potentially give rise to reductions in yield (Milne
and Hayes 2004).

It is important to note that the effects of compaction may be transitory, especially in clay
soils, where significant restructuring can take place through natural wetting and drying cycles
(Soane et al., 1987).

Even so, any extension to grazing in October and November or March and April will increase
the risk of soil compaction. However, extended grazing will also reduce the volumes of FYM
and slurry for spreading in late winter, particularly where NVZ closed periods apply.
Therefore, for any given stocking rate, extended grazing will increase the risks from grazing
in wet conditions, but will reduce the amount or extent of compaction from slurry and FYM
spreading.

Within the dairy sector, spring calving and extended grazing systems may potentially
produce greater soil compaction through trampling due to the tendency to graze into
October, when compared with an autumn calving system. However, high food intake from
October onwards associated with autumn calving may result in greater slurry production.
This greater slurry production when compared with the spring calving system could give rise
to greater compaction if more slurry is spread on moist soils in the spring.

Figure A1.1. The Probability of Grassland Poaching in Relation to the Growing and
Grazing Seasons, and Potential Transpiration (adapted from Patto et al., 1978)

41
Taking both grazing and manure spreading into account, compaction risk increases with
stocking rate and when grazing or spreading coincide with wet soil conditions.

In recent years, the overall number of dairy cows has decreased in England and Wales, due
to a number of factors including reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, lower returns,
increased input costs, and bovine tuberculosis (particularly in the south west) (Defra, 2006a).
Cow numbers have tended to decrease faster in the east than in the west, resulting in a
concentration in the south west and west of England. However, while there have been some
local increases in cow numbers, due to restructuring in the industry, stocking densities do
not appear to have increased at the Joint Character Area (JCA) level (Defra, 2006a). In
2005, on average, holdings increasing their cow numbers also increased their grassland
area.

1.1.2.2 Manure Spreading

In relation to compaction by machinery, Douglas et al. (1992) reported that using reduced-
ground-pressure traffic systems (e.g. low ground pressure tyres and controlled traffic
systems that use exactly the same tramlines over and over again.) compared to
conventional systems could increase herbage dry matter yield of perennial ryegrass (Lolium)
by 15% in 66% of the harvests. This suggests that conventional machinery can not only
cause sufficient soil compaction to impact on yields, but can also impact on other soil
functions such as water storage and nutrient supply.

1.1.2.3 Maize Production

Fodder maize can increase the potential for soil erosion as it requires considerable soil
cultivation, leaves a fine seedbed, and provides little ground cover for much of the season
(Anon, 2002a). Similarly, the late harvesting of maize can contribute to soil erosion by
disturbing the soil, and removing crop cover at the start of the wettest period of the year.
When maize is introduced onto steep slopes and susceptible soils that have been down to
grass for many years, it can result in a rapid increase in erosion and soil loss at the local
level.

Late harvested maize is particularly susceptible to soil compaction and erosion (Withers and
Bailey, 2003). Choosing an early variety and avoiding susceptible soils and steeper slopes
may significantly reduce the risks of compaction and erosion (Defra, 2006b).

Cover crops can lessen erosion by reducing runoff. In one study (Anon, 2001a), white clover
reduced runoff from maize fields by over 80%, but maize yields were reduced by 40%.

Cultivating across slope can reduce run-off volumes by 50% when compared with cultivation
up and down slope (Anon, 2001a).
Defra project SP0404 looked at methods of reducing runoff and sediment generation under
maize. It was somewhat inconclusive but did indicate that tillage methods could be as
effective as vegetative methods based on cover crops (Anon, 2001a).

Recent studies suggest that the amount of maize grown in the dairy sector is likely to
increase as the industry intensifies further (Boatman et al. 2006; Defra, 2006a). In 2006,
135,000 hectares of maize were grown across all sectors in the UK (Defra, 2006c). This
represents a 14% increase since 2004, and a 370% increase since 1990.

Attempts have been made to determine whether maize is replacing grassland in the majority
of cases (Defra, 2006a). However, It is not possible to use June survey data to follow

42
individual land parcels between years and we therefore do not know the previous use of land
now utilised for maize. IACS/SPS data may allow such an analysis of change in land use.

1.1.2.4 Silage Making

Silage making can also cause soil compaction that can in turn have an impact on various soil
functions. For example, compaction may potentially shift the bacteria:fungi ratio towards
fungal dominance, affect nematode community structure, and shift mesofauna and
earthworms down the profile (Creamer pers. comm). However, there is very little data on the
effects of soil compaction on grassland soil ecology.

The overall impact of silage making can be reduced by avoiding wet conditions, using low
ground pressure tyres and controlled traffic systems (Douglas et al., 1992).

Short-term grass leys can give rise to compaction problems (Godwin, 2003), but this is not
the case in all catchments. Spring re-seeding of grassland can lead to cultivation in wet
conditions and extensive structural damage, so autumn re-seeds would be a better option
where soil quality is a priority.

There is a general lack of information regarding the geographical spread and extent of
compaction caused by machinery on grassland soils (Godwin, pers. comm.).

1.1.3 Organic Matter

Dairy farming generates manure and the vast majority of herds rely on grassland. On the
whole, soil organic matter (SOM) under pasture tends to be higher than under arable land
(Anon, 2002b).

Although additions of cattle slurry and FYM may not increase soil organic carbon
significantly in the short-term (Bhogal et al., 2006), long-term additions can give rise to
increases in SOM status and can potentially improve soil quality and fertility (Mattingley et
al., 1975: Johnston et al., 1989; Persson & Kirchmann, 1994; Haynes & Naidy, 1998; Van
Meirvenne et al., 1996).

Percentage soil carbon (%C) tends towards a certain equilibrium level, depending on the
amount and regularity of fertiliser and manure additions (Johnston & Poulson, 2005). So,
where manure is no longer applied to soils with a high organic matter content, these soils will
tend to lose soil carbon until they approach a new %C equilibrium value (Mattingley et al.,
1975). This new value varies according to soil texture, and the amount of fertiliser and
manure applied each year (Johnston & Poulson, 2005). The soil acts as an important global
sink for carbon, and therefore has an important role to play in limiting CO2 levels. Grassland
systems tend to have higher organic matter and organic carbon levels than arable land.

1.1.4 Microbial Activity

1.1.4.1 Heavy Metals

Zinc concentrations in cattle compound feeds are somewhat greater than published
nutritional requirements. However, compound feeds often only form a small part of the total
diet, whilst providing the only source of supplementary minerals and trace elements. As was
the case with dairy cattle, zinc and copper loadings to agricultural soils are small when
compared with sewage sludge, layer manure or pig slurry (Nicholson et al., 2003).

43
The essential heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cr, Mn and Ni) are naturally present in dairy feed
materials. In addition, Cu and Zn may also be added to diets in the form of mineral
supplements. However, heavy metal additions from dairy cattle to land are much less than
those from intensive pigs or laying hens. Zinc and copper loadings from cattle slurry to
agricultural soils are around 1.0 kg/ha/yr and 0.3 kg/ha/yr respectively. The same loadings
from pig slurry amount to 2.2 and 1.7 kg/ha/yr, and those from sewage sludge are 4.5 and
3.2 kg/ha/yr (Nicholson, 2001; Nicholson et al., 2003).

The gradual accumulation of zinc can have an impact on soil rhizobia bacteria and their
ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen in association with clover and pea/bean rhizobia (Davis
and Carlton-Smith, 1984; Vigerust and Selmer-Olsen, 1986; Gibbs et al., 2006). Reducing
supplementation of livestock diets could reduce the accumulation of heavy metals in
agricultural soils and help avoid potentially serious impacts on grass/clover systems. Zinc
and copper inputs could be reduced through:

• matching feed concentrations to livestock requirements.


• reducing safety margins.
• increasing bioavailability through chelation, though evidence for this is inconsistent.

Recently, the European Commission has reduced the maximum levels of Cu and Zn in diets
of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry which will reduce the levels of Cu and Zn applied to land in
livestock manure.

1.1.4.2 Veterinary Medicines

Additions of slurry and manure tend to increase soil respiration rates (Bhogal et al., 2006)
because of the addition of fresh carbon sources. However, there is some evidence to
suggest that some veterinary medicines could impact on soil microbial activity and the ability
of soil fauna to degrade manure additions.

Within the dairy system, avermectins, coccidiostats, antibiotics (to control mastitis),
hypochlorite, iodine, glutaraldehyde, and foot bath chemicals (formalin, zinc sulphate, copper
sulphate) can all drain to slurry stores and be spread to land.

Beef cattle receive various wormers (e.g. ivermectin, albendazole, oxfendazole, and
fenbendazole), coccidiostats are used in calf rearing, and footbath formulations and pour-on
preparations (permetrin, deltamethrin, cypermethrin, alphacypermethrin) may have an
impact at a localised level.

Wash-off from the coats/skin of cattle treated with pour-on formulations can occur where the
animals are exposed to rain shortly after dosing (Bloom and Matheson, 1993). As in other
livestock systems, use of ivermectin and doramectin may impact on dung and soil insect
populations. Doramectin can have a low inhibitory effect on soil organisms, but is unlikely to
do so in the concentrations likely to be excreted by cattle or sheep (Taylor, 1999).

The degradation of cow pats, a key determinant of SOM, can be retarded by the presence of
ivermectin (340 d cf 80 d for an untreated pat) (Floate, 1998). This is primarily due to the
toxicity of ivermectins to dung insect populations (McCracken, 1993).

Similarly, repeated doses of antibiotics could significantly reduce the number of bacteria,
resulting in a shift in the fungal: bacteria ratio (Thiele-Bruhn and Beck, 2005) and/or increase
the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, a comparison of organic and
conventional pasture land (Anon, 2002b) indicates that, to date, the disruption of

44
fungal:bacteria ratios is not upheld in the field. Also, further research is required to establish
the extent to which agricultural practices influence gene resistance (Schmitt, 2005).

It should also be stressed that one of the acknowledged and valuable functions of soil is as a
filter and buffer for various potential pollutants from water and air systems (Burauel &
BaFmann, 2005; Defra, 2004). We should therefore question whether localised and
temporary disruption to microbial activity should be accepted as part of this function.

1.1.5 Soil pH

The use of fertilisers and manure tends to increase soil acidity (Chambers & Garwood,
1998), which in turn can increase the availability of aluminium and heavy metals in soil
(Anon, 1993). However, it is important that grassland and tillage land within the dairy sector
is limed on a regular basis to maintain productivity. Soil pH within dairy systems tends to be
maintained towards pH 6.0 for grassland and pH 6.5 for tillage land.

1.2 Water

Dairy farming is typically on intensive lowland grassland farms, many on moderate and
heavy textured soils in areas with relatively high rainfall. Significant areas which are drained
often have bypass flow (i.e. rapid flow to depth which bypasses much of the soil matrix)
enhancing the connectivity between field and receptor (river) and the associated risk for
nitrate leaching reaching water bodies. Suckler herds are kept on lowland, upland or hill.
Beef finishing is typically on intensive lowland units.

In a survey of over 100 dairy farms, the average farm N surplus was 257 kg N/ha (NT1842),
with typically less than 20% of the N entering the system being recovered in milk and animal
products, the remainder is either retained in the soil or lost as environmental pollution to air
or water.

Annual nitrate losses from grassland can be large (>50 kg N/ha) and are correlated with total
N inputs. Nitrate leaching tends to be less from cut compared to grazed swards due to the
more localised grazing returns. Excreta deposited at grazing can have a major effect on
leaching losses, as localised inputs (e.g. urine hotspots) can exceed 1000 kg/ha.
Applications of slurries with high available N contents carry the greatest risk of nitrate
leaching to water bodies compared to manures and FYM (NT0605, NT0601). High stocking
densities on a local field level can promote soil compaction, poaching and enhance runoff
risk to water bodies.

Poorly drained soils have an increased risk of surface runoff, which is exacerbated by slope
angle and high field-level stocking densities (overgrazing/poaching). The timing of fertiliser
applications is therefore critical (e.g. 10% of February urea applications were lost in runoff
from a research site in SW England).

For grass/clover swards (clover fixes 70-300 kg N/ha) the risk of nitrate leaching appears
similar to “grass only” swards but net benefits are possible from the reduced agricultural
intensity.

Nitrate leaching increases following dry summers when reduced plant growth leads to
reduced N uptake and greater unused reserves of mineral N in the soil at the start of winter
drainage (Rowden).

45
Research comparing conventional management (RB209) against Best Management Practice
(BMP) showed that reductions of up to 25% in fertiliser inputs could be achieved without
compromising grass yield (NT1829), with associated reductions in nitrate leaching risk.

Ploughing out grass in late summer and autumn results in very large nitrate leaching losses
(e.g. up to 70 kg N/ha: NT1801) and should be avoided. Ploughing out in spring to establish
new leys substantially reduces leaching compared to autumn cultivation (although the risk of
nitrate loss is still enhanced in the first winter following establishment due to the new sward’s
lower dry matter production).

Applications of high available N manures and slurries in autumn and early winter to both
arable (NT1402, NT1410, OC8906) and grass land (NT1404, NT1410, OC8906) result in
substantially higher nitrate leaching losses compared to later applications (e.g. January).
Fiqure A1.2 shows the leaching risk from slurry and FYM spread at different times of the
year. Leaching losses from applications to grassland in September were lower than from
those in October, due to the greater N uptake by the grass receiving the earlier application.
Recent research has shown that nitrate leaching losses can also be substantial from heavy
textured soils as well as freely draining ones, and that losses are much greater from high
available N materials (e.g. dairy and pig slurries and poultry manure) compared to farmyard
manure (King et al 2005). This body of evidence supports the recent proposals to change
NVZ AP rules. Due to the lower N content and carbon-rich material, the risk of leaching from
farmyard manures is substantially less than that from slurries.

Figure A1.2. Typical N Content in Cattle Slurry (left); and Potential Nitrate Leaching
Risk From Dairy Slurry (middle) and Old Cattle Farmyard Manure (FYM) (right) Applied
to a Sandy Soil in Different Months Under Contrasting Annual Rainfall Conditions.
Source: NVZ Action programme Evidence Papers

The NH4 content of solid manures typically represents <25% of the total N content when
fresh, and <10% after 3-6 months’ storage. As they contain relatively low concentrations of
NH4 compared to slurries, and have a high dry matter content (25-60%), solid manures
represent a low risk of loss to water bodies. The corollary to this is that the notably higher
mineral N content in beef and dairy slurries and their lower dry matter contents results in
their applications conveying a potentially much higher inherent risk of pollution to water
bodies through surface runoff or drainage.

Specifically, evidence has indicated that slurry application rates are the most important factor
controlling N and P (and hence FIO) losses to water in situations where rainfall occurs
shortly after slurry applications (NT1405). Higher application rates promote soil capping,
reduce infiltration rates, and increase surface runoff. N losses in runoff remain relatively low
where slurry application rates are limited to no more than 50 m3/ha.

46
Analysis of dairy and pig slurries shows that mean mineral N content is an important
component of the total N content (e.g. 29% in ES0121). Any loss of slurry from stores (e.g.
leakage) can therefore represent a serious pollution pathway for N, P and FIO loss to water
bodies – with experimental data from more than 10m depth below three out of six unlined
slurry stores overlying sandstone and chalk aquifers revealing mineral N concentrations of
83-622 mg/l (ES0121).

Extended season grazing can increase the risk of nitrate loss from cattle to water bodies,
primarily via lateral flow or preferential movement to drains. Nitrate losses to water systems
can increase up to two-fold where field sites are drained, due to the improved connectivity
between soil surface and receiving water body (NT1902).

Amongst the greatest losses of N, P and pathogens from grassland to water bodies occurs
when storm events follow shortly after manure applications or during/shortly after reseeding
operations (NT1005, NT1016, NT1032, PE0102). Losses of P to water bodies from land
which has recently received manures tend to be dominated by the P in the applied manures
rather than indigenous soil P (NT1005, NT1011, NT1012, NT1028, NT1041, NT1043), and
tend to be dominated by the dissolved phase. Such losses of P from surface applied
manures and slurries can result in very high concentrations of molybdate-reactive P (i.e. the
biologically-available fraction) in surface runoff (up to 70 mg/l) and in tile drains (NT1011,
NT1012, NT1028, NT1041), and consequently slurries with a high proportion (up to 60%) of
P in water-soluble forms are particularly at risk.

FIO studies revealed that on cattle farms where crypotsporidium was present, up to 95% of
calves were affected, and that crypotsporidium oocysts have been lost to water systems by
both leaching and surface runoff following the surface application of cattle slurries (OC0912).
Furthermore, drainage waters from fields grazed by cattle or where manures have been
applied have been shown to contain E.coli concentrations in excess of EU limits for bathing
water quality (2000 cfu/100ml). The greatest risks to water quality from pathogens in
livestock excreta arises from direct manure spreading into watercourses; where surface
runoff and/or drainflow occur from wet soils shortly following application; and runoff from
hardstanding areas and woodchip corrals (WA0804). Solutions to reduce the first two of
these risks include the use of buffer strips around field margins where slurry is not applied;
the improved calibration of slurry spreader machinery; and the application of slurry using
injection, trailing hose or shoe equipment; coupled with the careful timing of spreading
operations to minimise the risk of rainfall shortly after slurry applications. Collection and
storage of runoff from all hardstanding areas and woodchip corrals, and subsequent timely
application of this “dirty water” to land, will help reduce the last of the risks associated with
pathogen loss to water identified above (WA0656).

Silage effluent from grass, maize and whole crop cereals is a powerful water pollutant which,
if allowed to enter natural watercourses, can cause considerable damage to aquatic life.
However it is considered to be point source pollution and so is associated with clearly
defined discharges, which will often be avoidable, with correct system design and good
management practice.

1.2.1 Strategies to Reduce Water Pollution

• Restriction of timing and loading of applied manures and slurries with high available N to
land (avoid applications in autumn/winter - NVZ Action Programme proposals August
2007 extend this to cover all soils, not just freely draining soils; extended “closed
periods”).

47
• Reduction in the N content of livestock excreta by modification of rations to more closely
meet the requirements of the animals. .

• There is evidence that cattle raised on organic farms produce manure with lower total N
contents compared to conventional farms (5.2 and 6.3 kg/t respectively (Anon, 2006:
OBS03 report)), and hence reduce issues associated with N loadings from manures and
the risk of pollution to water and air.

• Reducing local stocking rates (which will limit N and P inputs); reducing the length of the
grazing day and/or the grazing season; and adopting zero grazing are all key strategies
to mitigate the risk of water pollution arising from dairy and beef systems (NT2511).

• Incorporation of slurries with straw and bedding (FYM) in order to reduce leaching risk
(by the inclusion of a carbonaceous substrate).

• Preventing direct access of livestock to water courses, periodic movement of


feeding/water troughs to reduce poaching risk (linked to Environmental Stewardship
scheme), and collection of all runoff from hard standing areas, woodchip pads etc. will
reduce the potential risk of pollution to water bodies. Woodchip pads in particular are
perceived as low cost but have considerable space requirements and result in
concentrated leachate, so must be fully lined and drained.

• Do not apply slurry to steep slopes etc, or when the soil is wet or frozen (GAP).
Incorporate applied manures and slurries into the soil as soon as possible, and do not
leave them on the surface of compacted soils (NT1028).

• Transfers of N and P (and hence FIOs) following recent manure applications are a major
issue for wetter, grass-dominated areas such as Wales and SW England. Reducing the
frequency of reseeding operations, and careful timing of applications to avoid wet soils,
and the incorporation of manures into the soil as soon as possible after application, will
reduce the runoff risk and minimise ammonia losses.

• Establishment of ungrazed, unfertilised buffer strips at the edges of fields, and the
construction of retention ponds/wetlands downstream of the agricultural area, are both
effective mitigation methods for reducing pollution from cattle systems reaching primary
river systems.

• Fencing off river banks to prevent cattle access can substantially reduce bank erosion
(sediment), and riverine inputs of nitrate (urine, faeces) and FIOs. This is now included
within Environmental Stewardship options.

• Correct setting of slurry spreader widths (NT1415, NT2002) and increased use of
measurements of available N in slurries (e.g. by sampling, or using Agros/Quantofix
equipment) would improve the targeting of slurry N applications to land with the resulting
benefit of constraining the risk of pollution to both water and air. Limit slurry applications
to reduce the risk of surface runoff (50m3/ha).

• Line all slurry stores to achieve compliance with IPPC legislation and reduce leakage to
water bodies.

48
• Better consideration for the P and N status of soils and the available N and P contents in
manures and slurries when determining application rates, timings and application
methods.

• Ploughing out grass in autumn releases up to 70 kg N/ha: reseeding should be


undertaken early in spring so as to maximise the use of the N released by mineralisation
and thereby reduce the potential for nitrate leaching.

• For fertilised grass systems, move from using urea to alternative fertiliser types (such as
ammonium nitrate), as this reduces the potential loss from ammonia volatilisation

1.3 Air

1.3.1 Methane

National CH4 emissions in 2000 were estimated at 2.377 million tonnes. Around 37% of UK
CH4 emissions emanate from agriculture. Ruminant livestock make the largest contribution
as CH4 is produced as a by-product of the microbial breakdown of carbohydrates in the
rumen. Decomposition of slurries and manures also generate CH4.

1.3.1.1 Factors Affecting Methane Production

• Level of feed intake: Increasing feed intake increases the rate at which feed passes
through the rumen, leaving less time for microbial fermentation of the diet
• Carbohydrate level and type: In general, increasing the proportion of concentrate – and
reducing the forage component – results in a reduction in CH4 excretion (as a proportion
of total energy intake) although this has not always been observed. The form of the
carbohydrate can also influence CH4 production, mainly through effects on rumen pH
and the microbial population.
• Addition of fats: Additions of oils and fats to ruminant diets have reduced CH4 production,
but these effects have been attributed to a reduction in the amount of fermentable
substrate rather than a direct effect on methanogenesis.
• Forage processing: Grinding and pelleting forage can markedly reduce CH4 production,
but this is most likely the result of increased rate of passage through the rumen.
• Addition of ionophores: Addition of ionophores, particularly monensin, has been shown
to reduce acetic:propionic acid ratio and production of CH4, although long-term studies
suggest that this effect may not be persistent. Although this feed additive is no longer
permitted.

1.3.1.2 Strategies for Reducing Methane Excretion

Mitigation strategies for reducing CH4 emissions include:

• Diet manipulation: Increasing the proportion of starch or sugar rich feed (e.g. cereals,
molasses) and reducing the forage component is likely to be the most effective on-farm
strategy currently available for reducing CH4 production. However, this can have
consequences on crop management, production costs and the quality of animal product
• Increasing efficiency: Increasing the efficiency of animal production will result in
reductions in CH4 emission associated with maintenance requirements and non-
productive stock. For example, Garnsworthy (2004) estimated that CH4 emissions by the
UK dairy herd would be reduced by 10-11% if reproductive efficiency was restored to
1995 levels, and that further improvements in fertility could reduce CH4 emissions by up
to 24%.
49
• There is also scope for reducing CH4 through animal breeding programmes by, for
example, breeding cows with greater longevity (thereby reducing replacement numbers
as reported by Garnsworthy 2004) or cattle with improved feed conversion efficiency, i.e.
less input for the same output.
• Anaerobic digestion of cattle manure enables the resulting CH4 to be collected and used
as fuel, which has the added benefit of reducing CO2 emissions by limiting the need for
conventional energy systems derived from the burning of fossil fuels.

Despite the fact that methanogenesis represents an energy loss in ruminant livestock
production, there appears to be little incentive at present for livestock producers to reduce
CH4 production. Any changes in diet formulation are more likely to be as a result of changes
in feed costs, availability or to manipulate product quality.

1.3.1.4 Areas for Further Development and Research

Feed additives: Ruminants are ideally suited to consume and digest forages, yet CH4
production is greatest on high forage diets. Because of this, considerable research effort –
in the UK and world-wide - is being devoted to identifying feed additives that act as CH4
inhibitors for inclusion in high-forage diets. A number of supplements hold promise as
strategies to reduce CH4 excretion in ruminants; at present many of these compounds have
demonstrated effectiveness in vitro or in sheep, but have not been tested for their efficacy in
lactating dairy cows, or the persistency of their effects. A Defra-funded research project at
IGER (AC0209) has recently started to examine some of these with a view to developing
them for commercial use.

Recent research at IGER suggests that an increase in water-soluble carbohydrate in


perennial ryegrass leads to a reduction in CH4 production (Lovett et al., 2006). A successful
programme of genetic improvement of forage grasses and legumes has led to the
development of high-sugar grasses, and the potential for these to reduce CH4 output will be
explored in Defra project AC0209.

In sheep housed indoors and fed with different legumes (lucerne, sulla, red clover, chicory
and lotus), CH4 losses were reduced by between 20 and 55% as compared to animals
grazing ryegrass/white clover mixtures (Ramirez-Restropo & Barry, 2005). Further research
is underway at IGER focused on identifying the genetic variation underlying ‘environmental
sustainability’ traits which have the potential to decrease CH4 (and nitrogen) emissions per
animal and per unit output. These include development of varieties with elevated levels of
condensed tannins.

Research has been undertaken, principally in Australia, on the development of anti-


methanogenic vaccines to reduce CH4 emissions. Although initial studies looked promising –
and large numbers of cattle and sheep were vaccinated – further research is needed to
establish long-term efficacy.

Recent research (Vlaeminck et al., 2006) suggests that the microbial ecosystem in the
rumen may be reflected in the fatty acid profile of milk fat. This seems particularly true for
odd- and branched-chain fatty acids (OBCFA), since these acids are synthesized by the
rumen bacteria and their excretion in milk reflects the microbes and microbial activity. The
OBCFA have been used to predict the duodenal flow of bacterial crude protein and the
rumen fermentation pattern. Although additional studies are needed to elucidate and verify
the relationship between milk OBCFA and CH4 production, if proven valid, this would provide
a useful and non-invasive tool to study changes in CH4 losses

50
Around 10% of the CH4 loss from livestock is released from manures (Anon 2004), and CH4
emissions decline to negligible levels by 10 days following application. Between 1.75 and 40
kT per annum of CH4 is released from manure deposited during grazing by UK dairy cows,
and this compares to 804 kT per annum from enteric fermentation (WA0604).

1.3.2 Ammonia and Nitrous Oxide

Cattle farming accounts for the largest emission of ammonia, representing 56% of total
agricultural emissions. Following excretion by grazing cattle, or the application of manures
to the soil surface, typically 10-60% of the readily available (i.e. ammonium) N is lost to the
atmosphere by ammonia volatilisation. Gaseous losses are influenced by dry matter
content, with around 65% of the ammonium-N in FYM typically lost as ammonia. The total
ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) content of fresh FYM is 25%, but only 10% after it has been
stored, and as a consequence, ammonia emissions are greater when fresh FYM is spread
on land.

Cattle account for just over 40% of the N2O emissions from agriculture with beef contributing
significantly more (23%) than dairy cattle (17%). There are both direct and indirect
emissions of N2O. Direct emissions are those emissions resulting from N inputs to soil (e.g.
from faeces and urine at pasture, inorganic N fertilisers, manure applications to land),
manure storage, crop residues and biological fixation by legumes. Indirect emissions are
those associated with NO3 leaching and N deposition from the atmosphere. The greatest
proportion of N2O emissions comes from arable cropping (31%).

Denitrification losses are highly spatially and temporally variable, but reduced N fertiliser
inputs through a tactical approach did not reduce annual denitrification losses. Losses from
grazed swards tend to be slightly greater than cut swards due to the effect of slurry returns
to the grazed area (NT1801). Up to 60% of the denitrification losses occurred at 10-40 cm
depth in poorly drained soils, with the greatest losses following fertiliser events.

Due to the lower grazing intensities in organic farming systems compared to conventional
systems, total N2O emissions from organic cattle have been found to be 57% lower than
those from a comparable conventional farm (OBS3 report). Other researchers have
estimated this effect to be closer to a 20-25% reduction from organic systems.

Most nitrous oxide occurs as the manure and urine are deposited on the soil. However, as
with CH4, producing a given amount of product from a smaller number of high producing
animals reduces N2O emissions. Options for reducing the amount of nitrogen excreted per
animal include the replacement of nitrogen-rich forages with low protein forages such as
maize, and breeding grasses which have a better balance of energy and protein, e.g. the
high sugar grasses bred at IGER Aberystwyth.

Analysis of aerosol dispersion of pathogens during slurry spreading indicates that some
pathogens can be transported up to 1.5 km from the location of application (WA0804). High
trajectory applications are to be prohibited (NVZ AP), but there remains the opportunity to
reduce ammonia emissions and odour problems further through shallow injection or band-
spreading using trailing hose and trailing shoe methods. Research has shown that both
trailing hose (arable) and trailing shoe (grassland) methods can reduce ammonia (and
associated odour) emissions following slurry applications by 30-70% compared with surface
broadcasting, and that cattle preferred grazing the bandspread/injected slurry areas
(NT1401, NT2001). Ammonia losses can be reduced by incorporation of surface applied
manures, or by shallow injection of slurries, although this does have a limited potential to
increase nitrate leaching losses (“pollution swapping”). The same research also revealed a

51
notable additional positive associated with bandspreading - the perceived increase in total
spreading days (>140 days compared to <60 days for broadcast), following initial capital
investment in equipment.

Total ammonia emissions can be 26% higher from organic compared to conventional
systems (OBS03 report) but this is difficult to explain in light of other work, although these
effects are often localised. In loose-housed cattle systems, ammonia losses can be reduced
by increased use of straw which absorbs the ammonia gas (i.e. mean emissions from slurry-
based systems are 31% of the total ammoniacal N (TAN) excreted in the house compared to
21% for straw-based systems. Comparing a straw-based system with one where an
additional 25% of straw has been used resulted in a reduction in ammonia losses by 35%
(AM0103), although increased use of straw beyond that level did not result in any further
decreases in ammonia loss and introduced practical constraints.

Rapid incorporation of surface applied slurries and manures also substantially reduces
ammonia loss. Ploughing, disk harrowing, and straw incorporation of applied slurries have
been found to reduce ammonia loss by 16%, 30% and 38% respectively, while incorporation
of FYM by ploughing has been found to reduce ammonia emissions by around 90%.
Incorporation of manures is an effective mitigation measure to reduce ammonia losses. This
is especially the case for FYM as a greater proportion (around 80%) of the TAN is lost as
ammonia, as FYM is not washed into the soil as rapidly as slurry.

Ammonia emissions from manure stores are directly related to the storage surface area
rather than the amount of manure stored. Emissions from slurry stores are strongly
influenced by whether it is covered, as well as wind speed, temperature, pH, and the
frequency of mixing. Covering tanks and slurry lagoons has been found to reduce ammonia
emissions by up to 80%, and by excluding rainwater from the store there is the added benefit
of reducing the overall volume of material requiring storage and spreading.

Much of the ammonia loss during slurry spreading occurs during the first few hours, with
emission rates decreasing rapidly thereafter. Mitigation options to reduce ammonia losses
therefore include rapid incorporation of applied manures and slurries.

Annual ammonia losses from hard standing areas are estimated at 18 kt NH3-N. In terms of
abatement measures on individual farms, pressure washing the hardstanding area reduces
ammonia emissions by around 91%, although use of urease inhibitors has proved to have
inconsistent results (AM0111). However, although pressure washing is highly effective at
reducing ammonia losses, it generates large additional volumes of dirty water (ca. 10-30
litres/cow/day) which require storage and spreading to land.

The development of a natural crust on the surface of stored slurry reduces ammonia losses
by around 50% - but the development of such a crust will be hindered if stores are top-filled.

Most of the ammonia emissions from farmyard manure (FYM) heaps occurs within the first
30 days of storage, and losses are increased if the heap is turned to encourage composting
or additional manure is added to the heap.

Losses of ammonia during and after grazing depend on the amount of fertiliser N applied to
pasture – high N applications increase herbage N contents, which increase the N content in
the excreta of grazing cattle (and hence the risk of N loss as ammonia to air, or as nitrate to
water). Ammonia losses from grazing livestock are associated with the urine deposited on
the pasture. As urine usually infiltrates rapidly into the soil, ammonia losses are

52
proportionately less from the urine from grazing animals compared to that from deposits to
impermeable floors in houses or onto hardstanding areas.

1.4 Biodiversity

In 2000 44% of all UK ammonia emissions came from cattle, including both dairy and beef
(Defra 2000). The most widespread environmental problems arise when ammonia is
deposited from the atmosphere onto plants, soil and water. Most is deposited close to where
it is emitted, but some may be blown long distances before being deposited, often in rain.
This is mainly over upland areas that receive high rainfall.

Ammonia, when deposited from the atmosphere onto land can enrich the nitrogen content of
habitats. The semi-natural landscape tolerates only low levels of nutrients, and large
ammonia deposits can disrupt the delicate balance of plant communities, favouring the
growth of a few common, fast-growing species at the expense of a greater range of plants,
often of conservation value. Nitrogen enrichment (also known as ‘terrestrial eutrophication’)
threatens about a third of valuable ecosystems in the UK, including upland and lowland
heath, upland bog, semi-natural grassland and some woodlands.

When deposited in large quantities, ammonia can also cause some upland soil, streams and
lakes to become acidic, affecting plants and aquatic biodiversity. Elevated pH and water
temperature and ammonia have been reported to be associated with frog embryo mortality
or malformations (Boyer and Grue, 1995; Ortiz-Santaliestra et al., 2006). The natterjack toad
(Bufo calamita), which is intolerant of acidic waters, has been lost from several heathland
sites in the south-east of England (Beebee et al., 1990).

1.4.1 Impact of Dairy Systems

1.4.1.2 Intensively Managed Grassland

Modern dairy systems are largely dependent upon intensively managed grassland where the
structure and composition of the sward is very limited. The high nutrient status of the soil,
maintained artificially by fertiliser use, encourages the rapid growth of agriculturally
productive grasses, such as rye grass. This vigorous growth suppresses any smaller, slower
growing species limiting the botanical diversity of the sward.

An exponential relationship has been identified between monetary returns and intensification
of farming methods over a wide range of grassland productivity’s and farm systems. At
intermediate to high levels of fertility, however, this exponential increase in financial benefit
from intensification is associated with a decline in biodiversity and an acceleration of the
ecological processes driving species loss from grassland ecosystems. (Hodgson et al. 2005)

On livestock farms where nitrogen inputs were higher than 75 kg/ha, an average of three
forb species say what this is and what it indicates was found in grassland, whereas higher
forb diversity was found only in grasslands receiving less than 15 kg/ha of nitrogen (Tallowin,
unpublished, cited in McCracken & Tallowin 2004). A sward of limited plant diversity
encourages an even pattern of grazing and so is also likely to have limited structural
diversity. These two limitations will severely restrict the invertebrate population that can
inhabit the sward. (Andrews and Rebane 1994, Thomas, 1984)

Many butterfly populations have suffered from loss of unimproved pasture (Rands and
Sotherton, 1986). Ploughing and reseeding old pastures with rye-grass Lolium swards
eliminates all known larval food plants of British butterflies (Woiwod and Stewart, 1990).

53
Sawfly numbers have suffered from a reduction in the number of longer-term grass leys
(Barker et al., 1999) and insect diversity generally is lower in more intensively managed
fields (di Giulio et al., 2001).

Intensification of lowland livestock farming over the past 50 years has reduced the suitability
of grassland as a feeding and breeding habitat for birds. The most important direct effects
have been deterioration of the sward as nesting and wintering habitat, and loss of seed
resources as food. Also, the abundance and diversity of invertebrates declines with
reductions in sward diversity and structural complexity (Atkinson et al 2004).

Intensively managed grassland involves the use of nitrogen fertiliser to encourage optimum
production. Amphibian insect prey and predators of amphibians such as fish can be very
sensitive to nitrate levels in water. Several studies, for example, Oldham et al. (1997) and
Marco et al. (1999) have shown that nitrates and nitrites adversely affect the growth and
survival of amphibian larvae, causing reduced growth, increased incidence of deformities,
paralysis and death. However, the application of manure or slurry to fields to improve
pasture is beneficial to earthworm abundance (Wilson et al., 1999).

Dairy units normally use silage rather than hay for winter feeding. Grassland grown for silage
usually consists of highly fertilised reseeded swards and two or three cuts may be taken in
one summer. This allows little time for both grass and forb species to flower and set seed,
and little opportunity for seed to enter the seed bank (McCracken & Tallowin 2004). In
contrast, hay is usually cut in mid- to late summer allowing many plants to have set seed.
Also, seed will be released during handling and transportation and dung from stock fed hay
will also contain large quantities of seed, which can be deposited back onto grassland with a
possibility of germination. The environmental benefits of hay meadows are further described
in the sheep section below.

1.4.2 Impact of Beef Systems

1.4.2.1Unimproved Pasture

Beef cattle can utilise unimproved pasture, especially coarse vegetation or wet grassland,
and are an important tool in maintaining and managing such areas. However, beef
production may sometimes be an incentive to improve pasture and the environmental
disadvantages of this are described in the dairy section above.

The biological features of grassland are profoundly influenced by, and in many cases
fundamentally determined by, the grazing regime imposed upon it (Crofts and Jefferson
1999). Work by Tallowin et al. (2005) and Buckingham & Peach (2005) provide an insight
into how modified grazing management can improve biodiversity and habitat quality for
farmland birds. Low input livestock systems are vital to maintain and restore the ecological
diversity of semi-natural lowland grasslands.

Old, unimproved grasslands, maintained by traditional management practices, including


livestock grazing, are an important habitat. Grazing is essential to maintain the sward
structure characteristics required by waders and other ground nesting birds in wet
grasslands (Milsom et al 2001, Treweek et al. 1997).

Cattle use their tongues to pull tufts of vegetation into the mouth. This means that they do
not graze vegetation too close to the ground and often leave tussocks of grass which are
used by insects and small mammals. Because of their wide mouths cattle do not graze
selectively and as a result do not target flower heads and herbage which is important for

54
botanically diverse habitats. Cattle are able to create their own access into rough areas and
the trampling of these areas can be an important way of controlling scrub (English Nature
2005).

Habitat structure exerts a major influence on the distribution and abundance of arachnids
(spiders, harvestmen, mites, ticks, scorpions and false-scorpions). Swards with varied
structure, including long stems and some bare patches can support most arachnids. Grazing
herbivores affect the habitat structure and hence influence arachnid populations and their
abundance is directly related to grazing management. (Gibson et al., 1992, Rushton et al.,
1989 and Dennis et al. 2001) Intensive grazing can lead to their virtual extinction (Thomas
and Jepsen, 1997)

Species richness and abundance of butterflies are enhanced by low stocking rates, and this
is true for both butterfly species preferring short grasslands and those preferring tall
grasslands. (Wallis de Vries et al. 2005)

Two butterflies, the High Brown Fritillary Argynnis adippe and Pearl Bordered Fritillary
Boloria euphrosyne are UK BAP priority species. Both are dependent upon a habitat best
managed by extensive cattle grazing. They require bracken interspersed with grassy
patches and canopy gaps with abundant violets growing through the litter. The action of
cattle (or possibly ponies) is important to trample the bracken, breaking up the standing
trash, creating a network of paths and opening up the canopy to admit sunlight. Without such
management of a site, bracken would quickly become too dense to support the violets and
the butterflies would disappear (English Nature, 2005)

The Limestone Country Project in the Yorkshire Dales was launched in 2002 as a response
to the poor condition of many important wildlife habitats. One of the key factors driving the
quality of wildlife across the area was the gradual move away from cattle grazing on the high
limestone pastures to systems based almost entirely on sheep (Evans 2006).

The Moorland Project (ADAS – Defra Project BD1228) has shown the benefits of summer
grazing with cattle for moorland regeneration by reducing competitive grasses.

Lyme's disease and louping ill are associated with tick infested upland pastures with
bracken. Undergrazing, particularly with cattle, and inappropriate management is thought to
assist in transmission of these two diseases (Silcock et al 2005).

The Brown Hare is recognised in the Biodiversity Action Plan, which calls for a doubling of
this species' numbers by 2010 (UK BAP 1995). Hares are best sustained by mixed farming
systems that provide them with a diversity of crops at different growth stages, so that short
grass or crops are available all year round (Tapper and Barnes 1986).

Grazing is essential to maintain the sward structure characteristics required by waders and
other ground nesting birds in wet grasslands (Milsom et al 2001). Coastal and floodplain
grazing marshes are particularly important for breeding and wintering waterfowl such as
snipe, curlew and swans. These marshes also have ditches that are rich in aquatic plants
and invertebrates. Riverside flood meadows, subject to winter inundation, are also important
for breeding and wintering waterfowl (English Nature 2005).

55
1.4.2.2 Hay Meadows and Silage Fields

Today, silage is the most common method of conserving grass for cattle but some cattle are
fed hay. See the section under sheep below.

1.4.2.3 Moorland and Heathland

Many moors and heaths are grazed by cattle and whilst heavy stocking rates, particularly in
wet weather, can cause damage, cattle grazed at a low stocking rate and preferably
removed in winter can be very beneficial. Dung left by grazing animals supports a rich
invertebrate population, providing important feed for young birds and increasing their
chances of survival.

Cattle are generally unselective grazers and will eat coarse vegetation and dead plant
material. They avoid eating heather unless grasses and sedges are unavailable (Adamson
and Critchley 2007) Cattle are useful in reducing the amount of rank vegetation such as
tussocky Molinia on a site. However, they do not play a major role in scrub management and
are not predominantly browsers, although they may break up scrub stands by trampling and
pushing through them (Lake et al. 2001).

Cattle are less discriminate than sheep when grazing Calluna, and are more likely to cause
damage through shoot death, uprooting and trampling. However, cattle grazing has less
impact on regenerating heather than sheep, which tend to select the growing tips (van
Wieren, 1989). Cattle grazing is not considered particularly suitable for Calluna dominated
stands in the uplands (Welch, 1984), but can be effective in reducing invasive grasses, such
as Nardus stricta, and encouraging Calluna regeneration (Lake et al. 2001).

Cattle selectively graze Molinia, enhancing opportunities for regeneration of dwarf shrubs
and other species. Wet heath vegetation is unlikely to be restored by grazing with sheep
alone. The mixed grazing regimes applied here were economically viable in the first year and
have potential for aiding restoration of wet heath vegetation. Long term effects will continue
to be assessed (Critchley et al 2005).

The trampling effect of cattle can have a beneficial effect on the mat of dead vegetation that
forms under some types of grass. The hoof prints expose dormant seed and create a micro-
climate that aids the establishment of a wide variety of plants. Trampling can break up
stands of purple moor grass and can damage bracken, reducing its spread. However, cattle
on wet heaths and blanket bogs can damage soils and vegetation in late autumn and winter
(Scotland’s Moorland Forum 2003).

Supplementary feeding, especially involving the use of round feeders, can be damaging to
the immediate area. Loss of vegetation and poaching by heavy grazing may lead to erosion.
Thus, the absence of vegetation and root systems to protect and stabilise the soil and the
disruption of the soil surface allow wind and water to wash soil away. This can lead to further
erosion as the less stable mineral soil layers are exposed. This is a consequence of over-
grazing in British upland systems has been of serious concern (Bardgett et al., 1995;
Thompson et al., 1995).

56
1.4.2.4 Woodland and Trees

Grazing beef cattle in woodland or wood pasture is a common practice, especially to provide
shelter to outwintered animals, and offers both benefits and disadvantages for the
environment. At an extensive level, with low stocking rates it is generally beneficial to
biodiversity in that it prevents mass regeneration of trees and shrubs and reduces the
existing shrub layer, thereby reducing competition between trees for light, creating more
varied growth forms of trees and a greater variety of woodland structures, including open
glades. This results in a greater diversity of habitats with increased light levels that are
beneficial to epiphytic lichens and invertebrates. Sunlit trunks are warmer, providing better
conditions for larval development and for wood-decaying fungi to fruit. Dominant ground
flora species can be reduced (Read 2000, Armstrong et al. 2003).

The Netted Carpet Moth Eustroma reticulatum is a UK BAP priority species dependent upon
the presence of grazing cattle in woodland over winter. This rare moth, mainly found in the
Lake District, is dependent upon its food plant, ‘touch-me-not balsam’, which grows in damp
woodland with dappled shade, high nitrogen and organic content soils and severe annual
ground disturbance (English Nature).

At higher stocking rates grazing can be detrimental to woodland and may result in a
complete lack of tree regeneration and poaching leading to infestations of pernicious weeds.
Supplementary feed increases the nutrient levels of the soil via dung deposition and may
also introduce new species and genetic variability via seeds. It can thus influence the plant
community. Animals also introduce chemicals into the woodland or wood pasture habitat, of
particular concern in cattle treated with a long acting wormer bolus. Residues in faeces can
potentially affect invertebrates, especially those involved in the breakdown of dung, and
insectivorous species such as birds and bats that may suffer from a lack of prey (Read
2000).

Trees can regenerate in the presence of cattle although the chances of achieving some tree
regeneration (good or poor) decline as cattle grazing pressure increases. However, even
when cattle graze for 12 months of the year, there is still an approximately 30% chance of
achieving some tree regeneration. With no cattle grazing, there is only an approximately
20% chance of achieving good tree regeneration and this declines as cattle grazing pressure
increases (Armstrong et al. 2003).

In wood, pasture or parkland situations individual trees may be used for shelter by cattle.
Frequent trampling and poaching below the canopy can damage the roots and with a build
up of dung and urine the high nitrogen levels are detrimental to mycorrhizal fungi. (Read
2000)

1.4.3 Veterinary Medicines

The avermectins, commonly used to treat parasites in cattle, are powerful insecticides.
Exposure of dung living insects to avermectins can elicit a number of responses, including
adult and larval mortality, an effect on feeding, disruption of water balance, a reduction in
growth rate, interference with moulting, inhibition of metamorphosis and/or pupation,
prevention of adult emergence, disruption of mating and interference with egg production
and oviposition (Strong, 1993; Strong and Brown, 1987).

57
As a consequence, dung from animals treated with avermectins may not support the
development of either target or non-target insects. The possible indirect effects of
avermectin contaminated dung on vertebrate populations has also been highlighted (e.g.
McCracken, 1993), their use may result in a depletion in the quantity and quality of
vertebrate food resources, which may be particularly critical during the breeding season or
when young animals are foraging and fending for themselves.

The potential toxic effects of doramectin have been studied in species that typically breed or
feed on cattle dung. Researchers reported that mating and oviposition were unaffected by
the presence of doramectin at up to 250 µg kg-1 in dung, although larval development was
affected at concentrations of between 64 and 250 µg kg-1 (Taylor, 1999).

Moxidectin is less toxic to dung-inhabiting insects than ivermectin, for example, it is 64 times
less toxic than ivermectin against Onthophagus gazella and Haemotobia irritans (Doherty et
al., 1994; Strong and Wall, 1994).

The magnitude of this problem is not currently known and further work is needed to quantify
the impacts of faecal residues of anthelmintics on invertebrates and vertebrates.

58
APPENDIX 2

2. Environmental Impacts of Sheep Farming

2.1 Soil

Where stocking densities do not cause compaction, and particularly where shepherding is
used to move flocks between areas, sheep grazing can have a positive benefit as far as soil
ecology and wider biodiversity is concerned. Sheep production in the uplands can
potentially contribute towards sustaining soil erosion by water.

In the lowlands, stocking densities tend to be positively correlated with soil bulk density and
negatively correlated with infiltration rates. However, soil wetness can have an overriding
influence on whether soil compaction and erosion occur. One potential “hot spot” is the
grazing of store lambs on stubble turnips, especially where this is carried out in wet
conditions. However, on light textured soils near surface compaction can normally be
alleviated using standard cultivation methods.

Sheep do not make a significant contribution to heavy metal loadings in agricultural soils.
However, the drugs used for the control of internal and external parasites, either as
injections, dips (diazinon) or pour-ons can potentially impact on soil flora and fauna.

Soil organic matter (SOM) levels under grassland tend to be higher than under arable land.
Another benefit of sheep production, particularly in the uplands is the improvement of
grassland through liming. This raises soil pH and can potentially reduce the loss of soluble
aluminium in surface waters.

2.1.1 Soil Compaction and Erosion

A standing sheep can exert around 80 kPa of pressure on the soil surface. This can
increase to 200 kPa when the sheep moves (Willatt & Pullar, 1983). By comparison, an
unloaded tractor exerts between 60-80 kPa of pressure (Blunden et al. 1994). These effects
are generally limited to the surface 5 cm of the soil (Greenwood et al. 1997) and the amount
of damage will vary with the soil water content.

Increases in sheep stocking rates have been associated with:

• lower hydraulic conductivities and infiltration rates (Willatt & Puller, 1983; Greenwood et
al., 1997)
• higher bulk densities (Langlands & Bennett 1973; Carroll et al., 2004)

However, the relationship between stocking rate and bulk density does not seem to be
consistent across all soil types.

Carroll et al. (2004) reported reduced infiltration rates and a compaction problem across
three Welsh upland sites, but there was no simple link between infiltration rates or bulk
density and stocking rate. At ADAS Pwllpeiran, soil bulk density actually decreased from low
to high stocking rates. This relationship may be particular to mineral soils with a peaty top
layer and there seems to be a lack of information about the impact of livestock densities on
these soil types (Carrol et al., 2004).

59
Although many studies have looked at the impact of stocking rate on the soil, most have
looked at lowland systems. Under these conditions a combination of heavy machinery use
and grazing pressure may contribute to soil structural damage. In the case of store lamb
finishing on stubble turnips, this can give rise to significant compaction and erosion,
especially when soils are wet (Angell and Phillips, 2006).

In the uplands, while water erosion may be responsible for the initiation of erosion, sheep
(and humans) are largely responsible for its continuance (McHugh & Harrod, 1999; Anon,
2002c). In 1999, some 25,000 ha, or 2.5 per cent of the uplands of England and Wales were
affected by erosion. On 6,541 ha, the erosion was directly attributable to the effect of sheep
grazing, walking and vehicles. Further increases in erosion occurred between 1999 and
2002, with sheep grazing as the main cause. Although peat soils were most sensitive to
water erosion, grazing animals and walkers were the main causes of erosion on mineral
soils (< 40 cm of peat in the top 80cm of soil). There was some evidence of recovery and re-
vegetation during the foot-and-mouth outbreak of 2001.

The positioning of feed racks or supplementary feed blocks may exacerbate erosion.
Shepherding (moving sheep) can reduce the potential for soil erosion by preventing localised
high stocking densities, but is unfortunately no longer financially viable (Parry et al., 2006).

Although overgrazing can lead to increased soil erosion, it is important to note that
undergrazing can lead to a change of habitat and an associated loss of desirable species.
Current economic pressures are leading to a reduction in sheep numbers across large areas
of the English uplands (Parry et al., 2006).

2.1.2 Microbial Activity

2.1.2.1 Heavy Metals

The heavy metal loading from sheep excreta is not thought to be significant at a local or
national scale (Nicholson et al., 2003).

2.1.2.2 Veterinary Medicines

Within the sheep sector, ivermectins and wormers are used widely and may influence the
degradation of dung (Floate, 1998). Cypermethrin sheep dips have now been withdrawn,
but synthetic pyrethroid pour-ons (deltamethrin, high cis-cypermethrin, alpha cypermethrin)
are still used. These present a slight risk to water, but the risk to soil is negligible, as there is
normally no excess for disposal. Only drips from sheep in holding pens will have an effect on
soil.

Organophosphate (diazinon) is now the main chemical used for sheep dipping. Diazinon is
toxic to honey bees, earthworms and some other soil fauna (Larkin & Tjeerdema, 2000).
Dips may therefore have a limited impact on soil organisms where these are spread under
licence.

However, the persistence of diazinon in soil can vary quite widely (Atterby et al., 2002;
Boxall et al., 2002). The half-life ranges from 2 to 112 days, according to soil moisture and
soil type. Bacterial enzymes can speed the breakdown of diazinon and have been used in
treating emergency situations such as spills. Diazinon seldom migrates below the top 2.5 cm
in soil, but in high risk situations (shallow, stony soils and permeable rock) it may reach
groundwater (Atterby et al., 2002).

60
In addition, one company claims that research carried out at the Central Science
Laboratories in York suggests that an enzyme, derived from natural soil bacteria, is capable
of reducing diazinon in spent sheep dip to trace levels within a few hours
(http://www.animax-vet.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=).

2.1.3 Soil pH

Defra project SP0201 attempted to assess the contribution of upland agricultural land to the
acidity and aluminium (Al) content of surface waters (Anon. 1993). Surface water samples
were collected from limed and unlimed mini-catchments over the winter’s of 1989/90 to
1991/92 at ADAS Pwllpeiran (west Wales) and ADAS Redesdale (Northumberland). The
data showed that inorganic Al concentrations (the form most toxic to fish) were highest in
acidic waters, with increasing levels related to low topsoil pH values and elevated
exchangeable Al concentrations. The study showed that agricultural land can contribute to
surface water Al levels, with the amounts lost dependant upon topsoil pH levels and the
balance of land uses (i.e. forestry, moorland and agriculture) within a catchment.

This would suggest that where soils are not limed in a more extensive sheep rearing system,
or if areas of improved pasture are abandoned, natural increases in soil acidity could lead to
higher inorganic Al concentrations in surface waters.

2.2 Water

Sheep are typically kept in extensive upland and more intensive lowland grassland systems.
N inputs are lower and mostly originate from feed, low fertiliser additions, atmospheric N
deposition, and N fixation. Nitrate losses per unit area are consequently lower than from
dairy and some beef systems, but the absolute area in England and Wales is larger. Nitrate
leaching is influenced by drainage status, sward age, and weather, as well as N input
(NT0601, NT1902). Nitrate leaching losses from sheep grazing upland pastures has been
estimated at 13-24 kg N/ha (15% clover: NT0802), and 2-46 kg N/ha (NT1602) with similar
losses from sheep grazed grass/clover systems compared to grass only swards receiving
similar fertiliser N inputs to that fixed by the clover. These relatively modest losses from
land grazed by sheep to water systems are supported by other research on reseeded upland
pasture and Molina-dominated unimproved pasture in mid-Wales (NT1902).

Increasing fertiliser N rates allow more stock per unit area and hence increase the proportion
of pasture affected by localised urine hotspots and herbage N content (which will increase
urine N content) – both factors will increase nitrate leaching losses.

2.3 Air

Ammonia emissions from grazing sheep are estimated to be around 5% of the total from UK
agriculture (similar to the 4% from grazing cattle).

Sheep produce methane mainly from the mouth, at a rate of between 2 and 10% of gross
energy intake. Methane production is higher on standard grass and clover sward systems.
As sheep are predominantly outside most of the year and rely on grass, their methane
contribution is high.

Strategies to reduce pollution from sheep systems

A key strategy to reduce pollution from sheep systems is to avoid pasture improvement on
upland and peat sites.
61
2.4 Biodiversity

Sheep production is often, but not always, a relatively extensive system, especially in the
uplands. Many upland pastures are only suited to sheep production and nothing else.

2.4.1 Unimproved Grassland

Sheep are vital for management of some important grasslands, in particular the short, close
cropped swards where small species of flora can survive, which would be shaded and out-
competed in taller vegetation. For example, low, rosette formed plants thrive only in such
swards. Many species of both flora and fauna are adapted to these habitats and suffered a
dramatic decline with the advent of myxomatosis when the rabbit population plummeted.
Rabbits are still prone to population fluctuations and so sheep grazing, subject to more
human control, plays a vital role in maintaining these habitats. Chalk and limestone
grasslands, priority UK BAP habitats, were created by and for sheep and their continued
presence is vital for the maintenance of these valuable habitats. Farm specialisation towards
arable cropping has reduced the availability of livestock in many lowland areas. The result is
the increasing dominance of coarse grasses such as Brachypodium pinnatum and false oat
grass Arrhenatherum elatius and invasion by scrub and woodland, leading to losses of
calcareous grassland flora and fauna (UK BAP).

Sheep have thin mobile lips and move slowly over the sward nibbling the grass. They can
graze very close to the ground that can result in tight ‘lawn-like’ vegetation. Sheep are very
selective grazers and will target flowering plants that can have a negative impact on species
diversity. Sheep can push their way through scrub and can browse saplings preventing new
growth. However, they find it harder to graze longer vegetation that is often trampled instead
(English Nature 2005).

Sheep can be selective feeders, avoiding tall plants and tussocky areas, choosing small
plants and often selecting flowers over grass stems. These preferences lead to the creation
of a diverse sward structure. Wethers (castrated rams) are less selective grazers and have
a lower mineral requirement than lambs or ewes, and so will often feed on coarser and less
palatable vegetation (Shaw et al. 1996).

Lowland calcareous grassland has a very rich flora, including many nationally rare and
scarce species. It supports many different invertebrates including scarce butterflies like the
adonis blue, the silver-spotted skipper and the wartbiter cricket. It also provides a feeding
and breeding area for a number of scarce or declining birds including stone-curlews. Well-
managed calcareous grassland has an open, grazed sward. Livestock grazing is essential
to maintain a species-rich sward; left ungrazed it can become covered in rank grasses and
scrub and require expensive clearance work (English Nature 2005).

Where grazing is abandoned and vegetation grows tall ant hills are shaded, the nests are
too cool and the colonies die out. Ants are a vital link in the life cycle of some butterflies,
such as the chalkhill blue, adonis blue and large blue. The adonis blue Polyommatus
bellargus is a striking turquoise blue butterfly and a priority UK BAP species. It is found only
on short grazed chalk downland of southern England. The largest colonies occur on the
close cropped turf maintained by continuous heavy grazing with sheep and rabbits. The
large blue Maculinea arion is the largest and rarest of our blue butterflies. Grazing is
essential to produce a suitable habitat of short turf with an abundance of wild thyme. (Natural
England) Most extinctions of large blue colonies have been caused by undergrazing
(Thomas 1986).

62
2.4.2 Hay Meadows and Silage Fields

Once characteristic of lowland England, hay meadows, (a priority BAP habitat), are now very
rare; where they remain they support species such as greenwinged orchid, adder’s-tongue
fern and pepper saxifrage (English Nature 2005). Hay is made to feed sheep and cattle (and
horses) in winter and at other times of grass shortage. The action and management of sheep
grazing on the aftermath has been shown to be an essential element in the maintenance of
hay meadows of high ecological value.(Jefferson 2005, Smith & Rushton 1994, Smith et al.
1996).

Grazing hay meadows after they have been cut controls competitive coarse grasses and the
trampling that occurs creates gaps in the vegetation allowing seedlings to grow. This
ensures a variety of species continue to flourish (English Nature 2005). Hay meadows that
are grazed after cutting include a dramatically higher number of species than those that are
not (Lawes et al. 1882, Williams 1978). Preventing autumn and spring grazing of hay
meadows can have a more deleterious effect on species diversity than applying moderate
rates of fertilisers (Younger & Smith 1994, Kirkham et al. 1996).

Meadows that are laid up for hay from early spring to mid summer are good for ground
nesting birds such as redshank and snipe that require cover. Meadow nesting birds have
suffered with the change from hay to silage due to earlier cutting dates and faster machinery
(Andrews & Rebane1994). Silage fields are poor nesting habitats due to their dense fast
growth, and early and frequent cutting. Hay is usually cut later in the summer, allowing time
for chicks to be reared and to fly before the nests are destroyed.

Hay fields contain a variety of grasses and broad-leaved plants, many of which will have set
seed before cutting, providing far more food for seed-eaters than silage fields managed as
ryegrass monocultures cut before seed is set. Less seed food is available through the winter
too, when the resulting fodder is fed to livestock. The large quantities of seed in dung, from
stock fed on seed-rich herbage, are another important food source that is lost to birds
(Atkinson et al. 2004). Hay may provide certain economic advantages to some beef and
sheep farmers as in recent years the costs of making big bale silage in particular have
increased. Hay does not pose any pollution risk (associated with silage effluent), does not
create waste plastic (other than from baler twine) and tends to pose less animal health risks
than silage (listeriosis abortion can be an issue in sheep fed poor silage.)

Hay meadows are very vulnerable as they are often small, isolated and in areas where there
is a lack of demand for hay and grazing. Without livestock grazing, these habitats become
dominated by tall grasses which suppress smaller plants and reduce the botanical richness
of the sward (English Nature 2005).

2.4.3 Moorland and Heathland

Sheep are important tools in successful moorland management because they selectively
graze grasses when they are succulent in summer, reducing the risk of grasses dominating
dwarf shrubs, including heather (Scotland’s Moorland Forum 2003).

On grass communities within heathlands sheep tend to produce a short sward due to their
ability to crop closely. Their light weight makes them less likely to damage lichen-rich swards
than cattle and ponies (Lake et al. 2001). On dry heath they can damage Calluna by
selectively grazing growing tips in autumn, but are less likely to damage mature and
degenerate Calluna through trampling. The amount of Calluna eaten will vary according to
63
alternative sources of forage available (Milne & Grant, 1987; Bartolome, 2000), but is likely
to increase in the winter (Bullock, 1985). When the grasses die back in the autumn they
prefer heather and will continue to eat it until spring grass returns (Adamson & Critchley,
2007).

In winter, sheep can cause heavy losses of heather on the lower reaches of moorland,
particularly around areas where feed blocks or hay are provided (Scotland’s Moorland
Forum 2003). The provision of supplementary feed tends to concentrate flocks in small
areas, leading to a degradation of the upland heather vegetation (Hudson & Newborn 1995;
Milsom et al. 2003). Hay is sometimes placed upon areas of old heather to prevent it from
blowing away, but this leads to a concentration of trampling and grazing on vegetation least
able to withstand it. Urea-based feed blocks can also stimulate the sheep to eat more
roughage, which is usually taken as heather (Hudson & Newborn 1995), which can also
contribute to the decline of the vegetation. Ideally, supplementary feeding on heather
moorlands should be given on areas of coarse grass or dead bracken, away from heather
stands.

A 5 year Defra funded project (ADAS report on BD1228) has just been completed and has
looked at environmentally sustainable and economically viable grazing systems for the
restoration and maintenance of heather moorland in England and Wales. It has concluded
that site-specific grazing regimes can meet specific objectives for biodiversity and
economics, but that moorland grazing is likely to be uneconomic without support.

2.4.4 Trees and Woodland

Sheep grazed in woodland, wood pasture or parkland may chew the bark of trees, in severe
cases killing them through ring barking (Read 2000). In parkland, or areas of low numbers
of trees they can successfully be protected from sheep damage by guards.

Mineral supplements can be used to replace nutrients and change the diets of sheep, thus
reducing the incidence of bark stripping trees (Read 2000).

2.4.5 Archaeology

Most of our best archaeological sites lie under grassland or semi-natural vegetation because
they have not been damaged by ploughing, excavation or growth of tree or scrub roots.
Grazing by sheep is the preferred method of managing underground historic features. Larger
animals may cause poaching, leading to erosion of the site and potential damage to
underground features or artefacts, especially in wet weather. Lack of grazing will allow
scrub to develop, when damage will be caused by underground root systems.

2.4.6 Veterinary Medicines and Sheep Dip Chemicals

Sheep ectoparasites such as scab, blowfly, ticks and lice are controlled by using chemical
insecticides either by immersion (dipping), ‘pour ons’, showers and jetters or injectables.
Following dipping (and showers and jetters), residues of the chemical remain in the sheep’s
fleece and may be lost to the environment through drips, sheep walking through
watercourses, loss of wool, product misuse, and in processing of fleeces. A further potential
source arises from the disposal of used sheep dip.

64
The two major chemicals authorised as sheep dip by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate
(VMD) are the organophosphate (OP) diazinon and the synthetic pyrethroid (SP)
cypermethrin (not presently in use). Both highly effective against target pest species, they
are also toxic to invertebrates and fish at very low concentrations. Cypermethrin is up to
1000 times more toxic to aquatic life than diazinon but diazinon has been linked with ill
health in sheep farmers.

Sheep dipping is far less common now (estimated that only about 10% of farmers dip their
sheep) so the issue of sheep dip contamination of soils and water is no longer as
contentious.

Cypermethrin and diazinon can persist in the environment for a period of days or weeks
before being broken down by a combination of biotic and abiotic processes. Diazinon is
broken down more rapidly at acidic and alkaline pH than at neutral pH whereas cypermethrin
breakdown is favoured only under alkaline conditions. For cypermethrin, sorption onto
sediments and biota is a further major fate process.

Investigations in Wales have shown severe declines in invertebrate biology caused by


contamination by sheep dip chemicals. Substantial impacts on invertebrates are likely to
affect fish stocks due to loss of food sources. Trout fisheries may also suffer reduced fishing
income because of effects on fly life hatches.

Like other OP insecticides, diazinon acts by inhibiting the enzyme acetyl cholinesterase
which is involved in the transfer of nerve impulses.

Cypermethrin acts by altering ion permeability of nerve membranes, causing trains of nerve
impulses that ultimately immobilise sensitive organisms. It has also been shown to inhibit
ATPase enzymes involved in movement of ions against a concentration gradient; this action
is critical to fish and aquatic insects because these processes are used to regulate oxygen
exchange.

A research programme undertaken by CEFAS between 1990-2002 has highlighted sublethal


effects of sheep dip chemicals (cypermethrin and diazinon) on salmonids at concentrations
close to the EQS concentrations.

Croxford (2005) reviewed the impact of sheep dip chemicals on aquatic life, including effects
on the olfactory system, reproductive physiology and behaviour of the salmon.

In laboratory studies, sheep dip chemicals cypermethrin and diazinon are shown to strongly
affect honey bees, sometimes fatally (Larkin & Tjeerdema, 2000).

The practice of applying spent sheep dip to land as a means of disposal may have
implications with regards to toxicity to sensitive terrestrial ecosystems. Acute toxicity studies
have shown diazinon to be highly toxic to earthworms (Larkin & Tjeerdema, 2000).

The mixing of spent sheep dip with slurry is a common method of disposal. However, this
has the potential to increase the number of pathogens available to be transported to water
as the sheep dip may inhibit protozoan populations beneficial to the degradation of
pathogens (Boucard et al., 2004).

Doramectin, used in the UK to treat sheep scab by injection, is cited as having a low
inhibitory effect on soil organisms, and only in concentrations that exceed the levels that are
likely to be excreted by treated sheep (Taylor, 1999).

65
APPENDIX 3

3. Environmental Impact of Pig Farming

3.1 Soil

Pig production can potentially impact on soils through compaction and erosion (mainly
outdoor systems) and through the addition of heavy metals and antimicrobials in slurry
(indoor pigs) or dung (outdoor pigs).

The indoor system may also contribute towards soil compaction through the spreading of
slurry and manure, particularly in wet conditions. Compaction can lead to reduced
production and the reduced efficiency of use of other inputs.

Additions of manure and slurry can potentially also increase soil organic matter levels, which
can in turn improve soil physical and chemical properties.

3.1.1 Soil Compaction and Erosion

Impacts are most severe from outdoor pig production and this type of production is
increasing while indoor production is declining. Outdoor pigs can remain in a single area for
one or two years and even in situations where a grass cover is established, the ground cover
can soon be damaged through trampling and rooting. However, the extent to which erosion
occurs will depend on site-specific factors such as soil type, soil wetness and slope (MAFF,
1999). Outdoor paddocks are normally established on free-draining soils, which are known
to be vulnerable to run-off and erosion (Evans, 1990).

About 39% of the UK sow herd is kept outdoors. This amounts to about 149,000 sows
(Penlington, 2007). If one assumes a typical stocking rate of 25 sows per hectare, the total
area concerned amounts to around 6,000 hectares. There has been a steady increase in
outdoor herds in response to the low capital set up costs, herd health problems, more
stringent IPPC rules and pressure from retailers for an outdoor reared product.

Danks and Worthington’s (1997) survey of outdoor pig production noted that one in three
fields showed evidence of runoff. This compares with the estimated risk of runoff occurring
from bare fallow land of about 1 field in 20, and from a high risk crop such as sugar beet of 1
field in 7 (Evans & Jaggard, 2003). Outdoor pig keepers are required to have soil
management plans drawn up to mitigate effects of soil compaction e.g. alternative
‘roadways’, field/paddock entrances and run off i.e. avoiding low points in field and growing
grass as buffer zones to mop up runoff

In warm weather, breeding pigs need either wallows or sun shades so they can keep cool
and also protect their skin. Wallows result in soil compaction and if sited near water courses
can result in severe erosion and loss of sediment and nutrients to water.

66
3.1.2 Mitigation

The following methods may be used to mitigate the degree of compaction and soil erosion
caused by outdoor pigs:

• Establish good vegetation cover before stocking (this is now a cross compliance issue)
• Undersow the previous crop
• Use persistent grass types suited to the locality
• Adjust stocking rates or rotate pigs according to soil type and condition
• Maintain stocking rates at <25 sows per hectare (MAFF, 1998)
• Avoid steep areas
• Consider nose ringing – welfare issue
• Consider positioning of wallows
• Move weaner pens down slope after each batch
• Change fence line position according to soil condition

3.1.3 Manure and Slurry Spreading

Hamza and Anderson (2005) include manure spreading as one of the main causes of soil
compaction on agricultural land. Pig manure production in England and Wales is estimated
to be about 10 million tonnes per year, with 4.5 million tonnes produced as slurry and 5.5
million tonnes produced as FYM (Smith et al., 2000). Assuming an N content of 4 kg/m3 for
slurry and 7 kg/t for FYM, and assuming that a maximum of 250 kg N per hectare can be
applied as manure in any calendar year (Defra Water Code and proposed Nitrate Vulnerable
Zone Action Programme Rules), the area required for pig manure spreading amounts to
around 225,000 hectares.

The effects of manure spreading can be reduced through avoiding wet conditions and the
use of trailing hoses, low ground pressure tyres and controlled traffic systems. However, the
latter should not be used as an excuse to spread manure in wet conditions.

3.1.4 Microbial Activity

3.1.4.1 Heavy metals

In England and Wales, heavy metal loadings from pig slurry at the field scale amount to 2.5
kg ha-1 a-1 for zinc and 1.5 kg ha-1 a-1for copper. In a review of the need for metal inputs to
livestock diets (Defra SP0516), additions of zinc and copper to pig diets were shown to be
appreciably above nutritional requirements because producers want to ensure zinc
sufficiency and routinely use copper as a growth promoter. Levels have reduced
considerably as a result of legislation but metals are given on veterinary prescription or as a
prophylactic (e.g. the use of zinc to prevent scour in weaner pigs). Zinc oxide is widely used
across the industry and pressure is mounting to reduce levels still further and to find
alternative therapies to treat scouring in piglets.

A simple balance method was used for estimating the heavy metal content of pig and poultry
manures from a knowledge of feed heavy metal concentrations (Anon, 2001b). It was
shown that substantial reductions in zinc and copper loadings to agricultural land could be
made by reducing supplementation of pig diets. For example, it was estimated that total zinc
inputs to agricultural soils in England and Wales could be reduced from about 5,000 t a-1 to
about 4,200 t a-1 and copper inputs from about 1,600 t a-1 to about 1,150 t a-1. Therefore,
reducing dietary trace element supplementation (particularly for pigs and poultry) would be
an effective strategy for protecting soils from long-term heavy metal accumulation. Recently
67
introduced EU feeding stuff legislation requires lower levels of zinc and copper
concentrations in some pig and cattle diets.

3.1.4.2 Veterinary Medicines

Antibiotics are given to pigs only when needed and as prescribed by a veterinary surgeon In
a recent survey of commercial pig farms (Stevens et al., 2007), 60-75% of farms used
antimicrobials in weaner rations, while 20-62% of farms used them in grower rations. Some
antimicrobials are poorly absorbed by the gut and the parent compound or metabolites can
be excreted (Beconi-Barker et al., 1996; Donoho, 1987) and either deposited directly by
grazing animals or spread in slurry or FYM.

Summary data is available on the toxicity of antibacterial agents to earthworms and


microbes (Boxall et al., 2002). For antibacterial agents, microbes are the most sensitive test
species with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) ranging from 100 (apramycin – used
across sectors, but not in laying hens or dairy cattle) to 500,000 µg kg-1 (tiamulin – used in
pigs and poultry) (VICH, 2000). However, little work has been done on how these levels
relate to typical soil concentrations in the field.

Kay et al. (2005) have looked at the movement of antibiotics to water, but little work has
been done on the concentration of veterinary drugs in soil in the UK. In northern Germany,
soil samples were taken from twelve different fields, 4-5 months after slurry had been
applied (Hamscher et al., 2000a). The antibiotics, tetracycline and chlortetracycline were
detected in the top 30cm of nearly all samples at concentrations of between 1 and 32 µg kg1.
In a subsequent study, the average distribution of tetracycline in the top 30 cm was between
20 and 40 and chlortetracycline was generally below 5 µg kg-1 (Hamscher et al., 2000b).
These concentrations are well below the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for soil
microbes of 100µg kg-1 (VICH).

3.1.4.3 Organic matter

As with other manure, heavy and regular applications of pig slurry and FYM have been
shown to increase soil organic carbon and improve soil fertility in the medium to long term
(Bhogal et al. 2006; Hountin et al., 1997).

3.2 Water

Pig slurry is characterised by a high available N content which results in applications of pig
slurry being at significant risk of nitrate leaching to water courses (see Figure A3.1).

68
Figure A3.1 Typical Content of Pig Slurry (left); The Relative Risk of Nitrate Leaching
From Pig Slurry and Other Materials Applied to Two Clay Sites (Middle); and the
Potential Nitrate Leaching Risk From Pig Slurry (Right) Applied to a Sandy Soil in
Different Months Under Contrasting Annual Rainfall Conditions.
Sources: Defra projects ES0106 and NT1406; NVZ Action Programme Evidence Base
papers

Research evidence has shown nitrate leaching from pig systems can represent 13% of the
total N applied in pig slurry, compared to 15% of broiler litter but only 1% of cattle FYM (with
its lower available N content). In a separate project, nitrate leaching losses were 7% of total
N applied where autumn pig slurry was applied to uncultivated stubble, but only 1% of the
total N applied where the slurry had been ploughed down or disked into the soil (NT2004).

Leaching of total N beneath pig manure heaps over a six month period has been found to
vary from 10-185 mg/l (WA0716), and hence effective lining or sealing of such stores is
essential to limit the risk of pollution to water bodies (also see comments under dairy/beef
systems concerning leakage from slurry stores).

Phytase included in pig diets can also increase excretal P returns and therefore increase the
potential loss of P from the agricultural landscape to water.

Outdoor pig production now represents a significant proportion of the national population
(about 39 % quoted earlier), and is the largest outdoor herd in Europe. Outdoor pigs are
often sited on more freely drained soils to minimise treading damage, soil compaction,
reduced infiltration effects, and associated welfare concerns. These effects can increase
surface runoff and sediment loss, and result in increased risk of loss of associated pollutants
(N, P, pathogens) to water bodies, although leaching losses are generally not likely to be
significant (ES0121). If there is a further move to outdoors pigs then production could
spread to more marginal land types (heavier land/ higher rainfall) with higher risk of soil
damage.

A Defra Project, (IS0215 - Integrated production systems for outdoor pig breeding herds) is
looking to identify and develop practical approaches for the outdoor pig breeding sector to
reduce inputs and diffuse pollution whilst maintaining biodiversity, product quality, high
animal health and welfare standards and the competitiveness of the pig breeding sector.

3.3 Air

It has been estimated that around 80% of ammonia emissions are agriculturally derived. Of
the total ammonia emission from all sectors, around 44% originate from cattle, 14% from
poultry and 9% from pigs (Defra, 2000).

69
Gaseous losses, such as ammonia, from agricultural land are largely derived from fresh
applications of manures and fertilisers (and to a lesser extent from livestock buildings) (King,
2005). Measures that result in manure being left exposed on the surface for longer will tend
to increase ammonia losses, while measures that encourage rapid incorporation will reduce
ammonia losses. Ammonia emissions typically increase by around 5% for every 1% increase in
slurry dry matter content, while the ploughing down of FYM can reduce ammonia emissions by
around 90% (King, 2005). For further details see, for example, the “evidence base” papers
accompanying Defra’s 2007 NVZ consultation exercise which are available from:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/nitrate/pdf/consultation-supportdocs.

Livestock type has a pronounced effect on N2O emissions, with pig manure emitting ten
times the amount from a deep pit laying hen house, and five times the amount from an
equivalent amount of cattle manure kept outside (Anon, 2000).

The review undertaken by King (2005) concluded that there is evidence that ammonia losses
from buildings housing pigs were around 35% greater from straw-based compared to slurry-
based (fully slatted) systems. Results from Defra project WA0720 provide evidence that
ammonia losses from pig systems can be further reduced by using a partly-slatted rather
than a fully-slatted system (as the non-slatted floor area covering 50-75% of the pen acts as
a physical barrier between the air below the slats and air circulating in the house).

Covering slurry stores reduces emissions and excludes rainfall, thereby reducing the volume
to be stored and spread (also relevant to the cattle sector) – however as most ammonia loss
is during spreading and housing, there is only a limited benefit from this pollution mitigation
method.

Application techniques are a major mechanism for reducing ammonia emissions (see Figure
A3.2. below), with broadcast spreading of slurry losing most ammonia. In contrast, King
(2005) reported that band applications using trailing hose or trailing shoe systems reduce the
surface area exposed to air and can thereby reduce ammonia losses by 30-40% or more.
Direct injection of dilute slurry can also reduce ammonia losses by 30-40% (ca. 7 cm depth)
and up to 90% (ca. 25-30 cm depth), but 40% of UK soils are too stony for direct injection to
be a practical pollution mitigation option.

70
Figure A3.2.Top Row: Conventional Applications of Pig Slurry Using a Raingun (left),
and Via Broadcasting (Middle), and Top dressing Using a Boom (right).

Bottom Row: Strategies to Reduce Ammonia Volatilisation From Slurry Applications


Include Open Slot Shallow Injection (left), Trailing Shoes (Middle), and Trailing Hoses
(Right).

Ongoing research is quantifying the use of shelter belts of woodland vegetation adjacent to
outdoor pig units in promoting the local deposition of N compounds (ammonia etc) and
thereby limiting odour issues and atmospheric transport over longer distances (Tang et al.
1995). Other research has found that the use of shelter belts reduces the high
concentrations of ammonia reaching downwind locations, and may be particularly suitable
when such units are in close proximity to ecologically sensitive areas or population centres
(as this approach will minimise both the risk of acidification and odour). Ammonia emissions
can typically be reduced by 13% from slurry stores and 3% from land-spread fields through
the use of shelter belts (WA0719).

Methane emissions are relatively low from pig and poultry houses (except weaners on slats).

IPPC regulations demand that large pig (over 750 sows or 2000 finisher pigs of over 30kg)
and poultry producers apply for permits from the EA. These regulations are contributing to
the increase in outdoor pig units as outdoor systems do not need to comply.

Farm manures and slurries are significant sources of offensive odours and are the subject of
many complaints from the public.

Research has enabled a wide range of detection and investigative techniques and
approaches to be developed including gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS),
olfactrometry, large scale odour chambers to pilot plants for measurement effects, which has
allowed quantification of the extent of odours to be determined.

A review of the literature in WA0205 indicated that about 30 compounds appeared to have a
dominant effect in people’s perception of odour from livestock waste.

71
Other work has found that the air in pig housing can contain over 100 odours. These occur
at very low concentrations compared to ammonia, but are responsible for the characteristic
smell of a piggery. Some of these odourants can be absorbed on dust particles, so reducing
the dust burden will also help to reduce the malodours.

Several projects have looked at ways of reducing odour from livestock. These are not all pig
specific:

Options for reducing odour emissions at all stages of farm waste production have been
identified, for example by reducing the protein content in the diet (WA0609). Project WA0208
suggested that biofilters were the most promising and least expensive technology for treating
odiferous air.

WA0609 also demonstrated that the major components of livestock odour could be divided
into – sulphides, phenols, indoles and volatile fatty acids. Emission rates were determined
for pig, chicken and cow wastes with the intention of using the data to produce an odour
emissions inventory.

WA0604 measured the influence of livestock waste application on gaseous emissions and
identified likely controls.

On-farm odour nuisance problems were identified in WA0635 in which 60 livestock farms (of
all types) were visited. Of these, 20 had a specific odour nuisance problem identified. The
project also reviewed the application of aerobic treatment technology on UK farms.

Other studies (WA0201) have looked at the practical on-farm options for reducing odours
from farm wastes and WA0203 attempted to devise economically viable options for the
treatment and spreading of waste. Reed bed treatments for controlling odour were examined
in WA0202. Other studies (e.g. WA0204 to WA0208) have looked at on-farm mechanical
and other options for the treatment of slurry during storage.

3.3.1 Strategies to Reduce Pollution from Pig Systems

Incorporate pig slurry/manure into soils by ploughing down or disking to reduce ammonia
loss and the risk of surface runoff and associated loss of N and P to water bodies.

Line all slurry stores to achieve compliance with IPPC legislation and reduce leakage to
water bodies.

Cover slurry stores and incorporate slurries using bandspreading equipment to reduce
gaseous emissions (ammonia) and odour problems, and thereby increase the potential
utilisation of the available N by vegetation

3.4 Biodiversity

In 2000 9% of ammonia emissions came from pigs (Defra 2000). See impacts of ammonia
described in the dairy section (appendix 1.4 above).

High concentrations of ammonia in the air can damage plants such as lichen, moss and
heather, important components of balanced habitats. Such high concentrations are not
widespread in the UK, and usually only occur near major ammonia sources, such as large
pig and poultry units. This is a concern when the unit is near valuable habitats.

72
Pigs are normally associated with intensive methods of production, where environmental
impacts are generally negative. However, extensive systems where hardy, traditional breeds
of pig are grazed on semi-natural vegetation at very low stocking rates can have benefits,
but this is not suited to economic mainstream production.

Pannage is an ancient right of common still exercised in some areas such as the New Forest
and the Forest of Dean. In these areas pigs are valued for the speed at which they clear up
acorns because by doing so they reduce the likelihood of acorn poisoning in other livestock
such as cattle and ponies.

Pigs have been used to manage bracken (Read, 1994; Kennedy, 1998) and proved effective
in reducing stand density if used in conjunction with cutting or spraying (Read & Williams,
1997). However, at inappropriate stocking levels the pig foraging strategy of digging for
rhizomes is likely to result in significant loss of all vegetation cover.

Defra Project ISO215 is looking at the environmental impact of outdoor pigs and will be
reporting on alternative cropping strategies (undersown cereals, root crops) and persistence
of different types of vegetation.

73
APPENDIX 4

4. Environmental impact of Poultry farming

4.1 Soil

The majority of egg layers (63% in the UK) are housed in cages. For these, soil compaction
and erosion is limited to that potentially caused by the spreading of poultry manure. Within
the free range sector (now with a range area of about 9000 hectares), soil erosion may
potentially occur over localised areas close to the hen house.

Layer manure makes a significant contribution to zinc loadings at the field scale. The use of
anticoccidials may also potentially have an impact on soil microbiology.

Frequent and large additions of poultry manure can give rise to increases in soil organic
carbon and associated increases in soil fertility, particularly on light textured soils.

For poultry meat production soil compaction is mainly restricted to the spreading of poultry
litter and manure.

While heavy metal inputs occur from broiler litter, they are considerably lower than those
from pig and layer manure.

As is the case for layers, the use of anticoccidials may potentially have an impact on soil
microbiology.

4.1.1 Soil Compaction and Erosion

Free range layers can potentially remove vegetation and cause soil compaction and erosion
in isolated areas. However, any damage to soil structure may be offset by the reduced
amount of manure that has to be spread to land.

There are about 9 million free range hens in the UK at any one time. These birds must have
access to ranging areas “mostly covered with vegetation”, and under EU Egg Marketing
Regulations, the outside stocking density must not exceed 2,500 birds per hectare.
However, the majority of UK free range hens come within the scope of the RSPCA’s
“Freedom Food Scheme”, which sets a maximum outside stocking rate of 1,000 birds per
hectare. At this rate, the free range flock covers a total area of around 9,000 hectares with
small areas close to the hen house often completely devoid of vegetation. These areas may
contribute to the many erosion hot spots (others include outdoor pigs, and maize, sugar beet
or potatoes grown on high risk land) that are thought to be responsible for the majority of
lowland erosion in England and Wales (Boardman and Evans 1994).

Defra project SP0413 may provide more information about the relative contribution of
different areas to overall soil erosion rates. It aims to investigate the potential of using fallout
radionuclide (i.e. Cs-137) measurements to provide national scale data on rates of soil loss
from agricultural land in England and Wales.

4.1.1.1 Spreading of Layer Manure and Broiler Litter

The other source of compaction from egg production is the spreading of poultry manure and
litter. 63% of laying hens are kept in cages. The manure from roughly 19 million birds must

74
be spread to land along with the litter produced from broilers, although 670,000 tonnes of
broiler litter is now incinerated in power stations (Shepherd et al., 2006).

The UK poultry flock (including layers and broilers) produces around 4 million tonnes of
poultry manure per year (Chambers & Smith, 1998). This contains around 49,000 tonnes of
nitrogen following ammonia losses (31,000 t of N) and losses to incineration (20,100 t of N).
To comply with the Defra Water Code, poultry manure applications to agricultural land
should supply no more than 250 kg total N/ha per annum. Poultry manures are therefore
spread across around 200,000 hectares of agricultural land. When this is spread in wet soil
conditions it can potentially lead to soil compaction (Larsen et al., 1994).

4.1.2 Microbiology

4.1.2.1 Heavy Metals

At the field level, zinc inputs from layer manure are higher than those from any other
livestock manure, including pigs (Nicholson et al., 2003). Zinc inputs from layer manure to
agricultural land in England and Wales amount to 2.7 kg Zn ha-1 a-1, while copper inputs
amount to 0.4 kg Cu ha-1 a-1.

In a recent study commissioned by Defra SP0129 (Anon, 2001b), zinc and copper
concentrations in poultry diets appeared to be in excess of the published nutritional
requirements. The study indicated that there was scope for reducing zinc and copper
concentrations in some poultry diets.

Heavy metal inputs from broiler litter are lower than those from pig and layer manure
(Nicholson et al., 2003). Zinc inputs from broiler litter to agricultural land in England and
Wales amount to 1.1 kg Zn ha-1 a-1, while copper inputs amount to 0.2 kg Cu ha-1 a-1.
However, as mentioned above, Defra project SP0129 (Anon, 2001b) concluded that
reducing dietary trace element supplementation would be an effective strategy for protecting
soils from long-term heavy metal accumulation.

Strategies for reducing heavy metal excretion could include:

• Lowering levels of supplementation through reducing EC maximum levels of inclusion


and safety margins
• Improving the information on poultry nutrition “requirements”
• Using feeds with higher bioavailability of Cu and Zn
• Using chelated metals – if they are shown to have consistently higher bioavailability

4.1.2.2 Veterinary Medicines

Within the egg laying sector, anticoccidials (or coccidiostats) in most birds and wormers in
free range egg layers are the main veterinary medicines used. For anticoccidials the
concentrations above which microbial inhibition has been detected range from 100 µg kg-1
(narasin) to 200,000 µg kg-1 (halofuginone) (VICH, 2000).

The wormer flubanvet (5% Flubendazole) is used when worms become a problem on
pastures. However, it is not considered to be a significant environmental issue, as it is not
routinely incorporated into feed.

The only veterinary medicines routinely used in broiler feed are coccidiostats (see section 5).

75
4.1.2.3 Soil Organic Matter

Regular additions of organic matter in the form of farm manures can potentially improve soil
quality and fertility (Bhogal et al., 2006; Haynes & Naidu, 1998; Hountin et al., 1997; Persson
& Kirchmann, 1994; Van Meirvenne et al., 1996), as illustrated for broiler litter by medium
term measurements at ADAS Gleadthorpe (Figure A4.1).

Figure A4.1. Effect of Broiler Litter Application Rate on Topsoil Available Water
Capacity (AWC) at Gleadthorpe (Spring 2001).

4.2 Water

Poultry litter has a significant available N content, and is therefore at greatest risk of nitrate
leaching following application to land (compared to low available N content materials such as
cattle FYM).

The same issues concerning application timing, grassland/arable contrasts, soil type effects,
and weather (drainage) relevant to the risk of pollution to water from dairy and beef manures
and slurries also apply to poultry manures. Specifically, poultry manure has relatively high
available N contents and so is readily leachable from both arable and grassland (see Figure
A4.2).

Leaching beneath manure heaps can be a substantial pathway for pollution to water bodies,
with ammonium-N concentrations measured over a six month period varying from 38-11800
mg/l (WA0716). There is also evidence that concentrations in leachate beneath broiler
chicken litter heaps tend to be greater than concentrations beneath layer chicken manure
heaps (ammonium-N concentrations of >2000 mg/l compared to <2000 mg/l) (WA0712).

76
Figure A4.2. Nitrogen Leaching –Comparison Between Poultry Manure and FYM by
Land Type and Time of Application. Data Collected Over 10 Site Years. Source:
Chambers et al. (2000)

4.3 Air

Ammonia losses from poultry housing depend on how the manure is managed, ventilation,
and the amount of litter on the floor. Poultry manure contains uric acid, which is converted to
ammonium and released as ammonia gas. The loss of ammonia is therefore strongly
influenced by whether the poultry excreta remains dry or becomes wet.

Defra project WA0651 reported that ammonia losses from broilers housed on straw (2g NH3-
N/hour/500kg live-weight) were significantly greater than for those housed on woodshavings
(1g NH3-N/hour/500kg live-weight). The same project also found that ammonia losses from
broilers using traditional bell drinkers (3.3g NH3-N/hour/500kg live-weight) were greater than
those using nipple drinkers (1.1g NH3-N/hour/500kg live-weight).

The application of poultry litter also results in ammonia losses, with around 63% of the TAN
lost by volatilisation following application to land (King, 2005). As is the case for beef and
dairy systems, incorporation reduces ammonia losses, with the ploughing down of poultry
manure reducing ammonia losses by around 95% (King, 2005). Due to the more friable
nature of poultry manure, incorporation by disking is a more effective method of reducing
ammonia emissions than is the case for FYM. For poultry manure, minimising the moisture
content can significantly reduce the resulting ammonia emissions.

To date no definite conclusions can be drawn about the potential health hazards of
agricultural, especially poultry, dust to the rural population as very little information is
available on the properties of poultry dust aerosols in general and bio-aerosols in particular,
including the viability/infectivity of airborne micro-organisms.

A monitoring study undertaken by South Norfolk Council in the vicinity of a broiler unit
concluded that it was unlikely that air quality objectives for fine dust would be exceeded.
Given that the unit studied was a very large facility and residential properties were very close
to the sheds, it was considered unlikely that emissions from intensive broiler farms in the UK
would result in an exceedance of the air quality objectives unless background concentrations
were very high or there were other significant sources of fine dust in the area.

In general, the lifetime of viable organisms from poultry under ambient conditions is thought
to be low, but measurements are lacking to corroborate this view. The die-off rate of micro-
77
organisms emitted from animal housing is thought to be high due to a multiplicity of factors
such as low humidity, oxygen toxicity and UV radiation. The likely exposure level to poultry
aerosols in the rural population is also largely unknown.

The relative risk of dust and airborne bacteria as potential contaminants according to flooring
(straw versus fully slatted) and feeding and their interaction within a finishing system were
examined in LS3601. Dust emissions were found to be in line with previous values. Animal
activity is the largest factor influencing dust emission, hence no significant effects were
found for feeding treatment. Higher dust emissions were expected from the straw-based
system but this was not evident in the study. This was probably due to a relatively small
depth of straw used compared to commercial practice.

SLP LINK Project LK0612 looked at the possibility of reducing aerial pollutant emissions
from broiler houses by dietary control. Diets ranged in protein and energy content and
houses were monitored for aerial emissions of dust and odour (and ammonia). Relationships
were found between diet and emissions of dust and odour - highest dust and odour
emissions occurred with the most extreme diets (lowest protein and highest energy) as a
consequence of unusually unsettled bird behaviour.

4.4 Strategies to Reduce Pollution from Poultry Systems

Manure handling issues are the same as for cattle systems e.g. restrictions of timing and
loading of applied manures and slurries with high available N to land (avoid applications in
autumn/winter - NVZ Action Programme proposals August 2007 extend this to cover all
soils).

An ongoing research project (AC0104) is looking at emissions and abatement of dust from
poultry houses in order to make a full assessment of the human health implications of poultry
dust. Samples will be taken from the three most prevalent poultry systems – broilers, laying
hens in cages and laying hens in barn systems, at the point of emission, in both summer and
winter. The samples are to be analysed for particle mass, particle size distribution and fine
particle composition, chemical and microbiological composition. In addition, samples will be
taken at a range of distances downwind from the source and analysed for microbiological
composition to determine the potential health implications of poultry dust.
Abatement techniques such as “electrostatic precipitators” and “wet scrubbers” were
considered to be too expensive for widespread adoption, but changes in animal feed from
dry to “wet” materials offered some promise. However, no sure-fire method of abatement for
agriculture was identified in WA0802. However, automatic spraying of diluted vegetable oil
(5-10% oil in water) twice a day for 15 seconds during feeding times has been shown to
reduce total dust concentrations by 50% or more.

AC0104 will look at emerging abatement techniques to reduce dust levels inside poultry
houses. The emphasis of the assessment will not only be on the efficacy of the abatement
technique, but also on costs and practicality.

78
4.5 Biodiversity

Systems of Egg and Poultry Meat Production

In 2000 14% of ammonia emissions came from poultry, including both egg and meat
producing units (Defra 2000). See also section on ammonia under Dairy section, above.

Data available on endogenous oestrogens (Shore et al., 1988) demonstrate that these
compounds can be transported from poultry farms, via agricultural run-off to rivers and
streams. Oestrogen (as an endocrine disruptor) can affect reproduction in fish species.
Increased concentrations of oestrogen can give rise to male fish gaining female
characteristics, which could in turn impact on reproduction - this has been studied in Atlantic
salmon and other species.

There is a scarcity of research about the impacts of poultry production on biodiversity.

79
References

Abbot, K. A., Taylor, M. & Stubbings, L. A. (2004). Sustainable Worm Control Strategies for
Sheep. A Technical Manual for Veterinary Surgeons and Advisors.

Adamson, H.F. & Critchley, C.N.R. (2007) Appendix 1a.1 Literature Review: Grazing of
Heather Moorland Vegetation. In: Determining Environmentally Sustainable and
Economically Viable Grazing Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather
Moorland in England and Wales. Defra contract report BD1228.

AC0206: A review of research to identify best practice for reducing GHG from agriculture
and land management. IGER and ADAS Oct 2007.

ADAS, NERC CEH, IGER, Newcsatle University, RSPB and SAC (2007) Defra project
BD1228. Determining Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Grazing
Systems for the Restoration and Maintenance of Heather Moorland in England and Wales.

AM0101: National Ammonia reduction strategy evaluation system (NARSES). Defra.

AM0103: Evaluation of targeted or additional straw use as a means of reducing NH3


emissions from buildings housing cattle and pigs. Defra.

AM0111: Measurements and abatement of ammonia emissions from hard standings used by
livestock. Defra.

AM0113: Updating the inventory of ammonia emissions from UK agriculture for the years
2000 and 2001. Defra.

Andrews, J. and Rebane, M. (1994). Farming and Wildlife: A practical management


handbook. RSPB

Angell, B. & Phillips, K. (2006) An Analysis of the Role of the Beef and Sheep Industries in
Achieving Defra’s Strategic Objectives. Report DLB2406 prepared for Defra.

Anon. (1993) To determine the effect of soil pH on aluminium content of drainage waters
from improved and unimproved grassland. Project No. SP0201. Report to MAFF.

Anon. (2000) Improved characterisations of nitrous oxide emissions from livestock buildings
and animal waste stores. Project No. CC0221. Report to Defra.

Anon. (2001a) Soil erosion control in maize. Project No. SP0404. Report to Defra.

Anon. (2001b) Heavy metal and nutrient balances for pig and poultry production systems.
Project No. SP0129. Report to Defra.

Anon. (2002a) The Government's strategic review of diffuse water pollution from agriculture
in England: Agriculture and Water: A diffuse pollution review. Defra Report.

Anon. (2002b) Understanding soil fertility in organically farmed systems. Project No.
OF0164. Report to Defra.

Anon. (2002c) Upland soil erosion data analysis. Project No. SP0406. Report to Defra.

80
Anon. (2004). Greenhouse gas mitigation for organic and conventional dairy production
(MIDAIR). Project No. CC0255. Report to Defra.

Anon. (2006). OBS 03: Quantitative approaches to assessment of farm level changes and
implications for the environment. Final report under the Agricultural Change and
Environment Observatory programme. (CSL, York / University of Gloucester).

Anon. (2006d) Tools for managing manure nutrients.

www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Tools%20for%20managing%20manure%20nutrients.pdf

Armstrong, H.M., Poulsom, L., Connolly, T. and Peace, A. (2003) A survey of cattle-grazed
woodlands in Britain. Forestry Commission Report.

Atkinson, P.W., Buckingham, D.L. & Morris, A.J. (2004). What factors determine where
invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands. In: J. A. Vickery & A. D.
Evans (eds) Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds II: The Road to
Recovery. Ibis 146 (suppl. 2): 99-107.

Atterby, H., Smith, N., Chaudhry, Q., & Stead, D. (2002) Exploiting microbes and plants to
clean up pesticide contaminated environments. Pesticide Outlook, 13, 9 - 13, DOI:
10.1039/b200937b.

Bardgett, R. D., Marsden J.H., & Howard D.C. (1995). The extent and condition of heather
on moorland in the uplands of England and Wales. Biological Conservation, 71, 155-161.

Barker, A.M., Brown, N.J. & Reynolds, C.J.M. (1999) Do host-plant requirements and
mortality from soil cultivation determine the distribution of graminivorous sawflies on
farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 271-282.

Bartolme, J., Franch, J., Plaixats, J. & Seligman, N.G. (2000). Grazing alone is not enough
to maintain landscape diversity in the Montseny Biosphere Reserve. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 267-273.

Batey, T. & McKenzie, D.C. (2006) Soil compaction: identification directly in the field. Soil
Use and Management. 22, 123-131.

Beconi-Barker, M.G., Roof, R.D., Vidmar, T.J., Hornish, R.E., Smith, E.B., Gatchell, C.L. and
Gilbertson, T.J. (1996) Ceftiofur sodium: absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion
in target animals and its determination by high performance liquid chromatography.
Veterinary Drug Residues, 636, 70-84.

Beebee, T.J.C., Flower, R.J., Stevenson, A.C., Patrick, S.T., Appleby, P.G., Fletcher, C.,
Marsh, C., Natkanski, J., Rippey, B. & Battarbee, R.W. (1990). Decline of the Natterjack toad
Bufo calamita in Britain: Palaeoecological documentary and experimental evidence for
breeding site acidification. Biological Conservation, 53, 1-20.

Bhogal, A., Nicholson, F.A. & Chambers, B.J. (2006) Manure organic carbon inputs and soil
quality. In: Petersen, S. O. [ed.] Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the FAO
RAMIRAN: Technology for Recycling of Manure and Organic Residues in a Whole-Farm
Perspective, DIAS report no. 122, Aarhus, Denmark, Danish Institute of Agricultural
Sciences, pp. 33-35.

81
Bloom, R.A. & Matheson, J.C. (1993) Environmental assessment of avermectins by the US
Food and Drug Administration. Veterinary Parasitology, 48, 281-294.

Boardman, J. & Evans, J.R. (1994) Soil erosion in Britain: a review. In R.J. Rickson (ed.),
Conserving soil resources: European perspectives. Wallingford, CAB International: 3-12.

Boatman, N., Dwyer, J. and Ingram, J. (2006) The environmental implications of the 2003
CAP reforms in England. Synthesis report from the Agricultural Change and Environment
Observatory Programme: OBS 04. October 2006.

Boucard,T.K., Parry, J., Jones, K. & Semple, K. T. (2004) Effects of organophosphate


andsynthetic pyrethroid sheep dip formulations on protozoan survival and bacterial
survivaland growth. Fems Microbiology Ecology 47, 121-127.

Boxall, A.B.A., Fogg, L., Blackwell, P.A., Kay, P. & Pemberton, E.J. (2002) Review of
Veterinary Medecines in the Environment. R & D Technical Report P6-012/8/TR.
Environment Agency 2002.

Boyer, R. & Grue, C.E. (1995). The need for water-quality criteria for frogs.
EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, 103, 352-357.

Buchmann, S.L. & Ascher, J.S. (2005) The plight of pollinating bees. Bee World, 79, 71-74.

Buckingham, D.L. & Peach, W.J. (2005). The influence of livestock management on habitat
quality for farmland birds. Animal Science 81: 199-203.

Bullock, D. J. & Armstrong, H. M. (2000). Grazing for Environmental Benefit. The Principles
and Practice of Grazing for Profit and Environmental Gain within Temperate Grassland
Systems. Occasional Symposium No. 34, British Grassland Society 191 – 200.

Bullock, D.J. (1985). Annual diets of hill sheep and feral goats in southern Scotland. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 22, 423-433.

Bullock, J.M. & Pakeman R.J. (1997). Grazing of lowland heath in England: Management
methods and their effects on heathland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 79, 1-13.

Burauel, P. & BaFmann, F. (2005). Soils as filter and buffer for pesticides--experimental
concepts to understand soil functions. Environmental Pollution 133, 11-16.

Carroll, Z.L., Reynolds, B., Emmett, B.A., Sinclair, F.L., Ruiz de Ona, C. & Williams, P.
(2004) The effect of stocking density on soil in upland Wales. Final Report. May 2004.
Countryside Council for Wales Contract Science Report No 630. CCW Contract No. FC 73-
02-280.

CC0206: Emission and absorption of greenhouse gases from grassland systems. Defra.

Chambers, B.J. & Garwood, J.W.D (1998). Lime loss rates from arable
and grassland soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 131, 455-
464.

Chambers, B.J., Lord, E.I., Nicholson, F.A. and Smith, K.A. (1999). Predicting nitrogen
availability and losses following application of organic manure to arable land. Soil Use
and Management, 15, 137-143.

82
Chambers, B.J., Nicholson, N., Smith, K.A., Pain, B., Cumby, T. and Scotford, I. (2001).
Managing Livestock Manures: Booklet 1 – Making better use of livestock manures on
arable (2nd edition). ADAS Gleadthorpe Research Centre, Notts.

Chambers, B.J. & Smith, K.S. (1998). Nitrogen: some practical solutions for the poultry
industry. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 54, 353-357. Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, B.J., Smith K.A. & Pain, B.F. (2000). Strategies to encourage better use of
nitrogen in animal manures. Soil Use and Management, 16, 157-161.

Countryside Survey (2000). Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside.
Defra publications, Unit 2 Goldthorpe Industrial Estate, Goldthorpe, Rotherham S63 9BL.
ISBN 1 85112 460 8.

Critchley, C. N. R., Adamson, H. F. & Hyslop, J. J. (2005) Short-term impact of sheep and
cattle grazing on upland wet heath vegetation. British Society of Animal Science 230.

Crofts, A. & Jefferson, R.G. (eds) (1999). The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook,
2nd edition. Peterborough: English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts.

Croxford, A., (2005). Sheep Dip Impacts on Aquatic Life. Environment Agency.

Cumulus Consultants Ltd (in association with IEEP and CCRU) (2005) Assessment of the
impact of CAP Reform and other key policies on upland farms and land use implications in
both Severely Disadvantaged & Disadvantaged Areas of England. Final Report for Defra
Issue: 5.0 Report No: CC-P-423 Date of Issue: 29 December 2005.

Cuttle, S., Macload, C., Chadwick, D., Scholefield, D., Haygarth, P., Newell-Price, P., Harris,
D., Shepherd, M., Chambers, B. & Humphrey, R. (2006) An Inventory of Methods to Control
Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) USER MANUAL. Defra report, project
ES0203, 115pp

Danks, P. & Worthington, T. (1997) Sustainable systems of outdoor pig production.


Research and Development Technical Report P78, Environment Agency R & D
Dissemination Centre c/o WRC Frankland Road, Swindon SN5 8YF, UK.

Davis, R.D. and Carlton-Smith, C.H. (1984) An investigation into the phytotoxicity of zinc,
copper and nickel using sewage sludge of controlled metal content. Environmental Pollution
(Series B) 8, 163-185.

Defra (2000). Ammonia in the UK.

Defra (2004). The First Soil Action Plan for England: 2004-06. London.

Defra (2006a). Analysis of recent data on dairy cows in England and implications for the
environment. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Research Report no.
02.

Defra (2006b). Cross Compliance Guidance for Soil Management: 2006 edition. Defra
Publications, Admail 6000, London SW1A 2XX.

83
Defra (2006c). Agricultural and Horticultural Survey: June 2006. United Kingdom. A National
Statistics publication.

Defra (2007). Market Mechanisms for Reducing GHG Emissions from Agriculture, Forestry
and Land Management. Report for Defra by NERA Economic Consulting July 2007.

Dennis, P., Young, M.R. & Bentley, C. (2001). The effects of varied grazing management on
epigeal spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions of Nardus stricta grassland in upland
Scotland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 86, 39-57.

Donoho, A.L. (1987). Metabolism and residue studies with actaplanin. Drug Metabolism
Reviews, 18 (2&3), 163-176.

Douglas,J.T., Campbell, D. J. & Crawford, C. E. (1992). Soil and Crop Responses to


Conventional, Reduced Ground Pressure and Zero Traffic Systems for Grass-Silage
Production. Soil & Tillage Research 24, 421-439.

di Giulio, M., Edwards, P.J. & Meister, E. (2001). Enhancing insect diversity in agricultural
grasslands: the roles of management and landscape structure. Journal of Applied Ecology,
38, 310-319.

Doherty, W.M., Stewart, N.P., Cobb, R.M. & Keiran, P.J. (1994). In-vitro comparison of the
larvicidal activity of moxidectin and abamectin against Onthophagus gazella (F)(Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae) and Haematobia irritans exigua De Meijere (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of
the Australian Entomological Society, 33, 71-74.

Dwyer, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., Ingam, J. & Taylor, J. (2006). Agricultural Change and
Observatory Programme, OBS 02: CAP Reform – Implications of farm level change for
environmental outcomes.

English Nature (2001). The Upland Grassland Management Handbook.

English Nature (2005). The importance of livestock grazing for wildlife conservation.

English Nature and Defra (undated) Butterfly Conservation factsheets.

ES0106: Brimstone-NPS: Integrated land use & manure management systems to control
diffuse nutrient loss from drained clay soils. Defra.

ES0121: Cost effective diffuse pollution mitigation. Defra.

ES0203 - The cost-effectiveness of integrated diffuse pollution mitigation measures

Evans, R. (1990). Soils at risk of accelerated erosion in England and Wales. Soil Use and
Management 6, 125-131.

Evans, R. & Jaggard, K.W. (2003). Controlling run-off and water erosion from sugar beet
land. A review for the British Beet Research Organisation. The Research Station, Great
North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough PE8 6HJ, UK.

Evans, R. (2004). Outdoor pigs and flooding: an English case study. Soil Use and
Management, 20, 2, 178-181.

84
Evans P. (2006). Using Cattle for Conservation of the Natural Environment (lessons from
the Limestone Country (LIFE) Project). British Cattle Breeders Conference 2006.

Floate,K.D. (1998). Off-target effects of ivermectin on insects and on dung degradation in


southern Alberta, Canada. Bulletin of Entomological Research 88, 25-35.

Garnsworthy, P.C. (2004). The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling
approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 112:211-223.

Gibbs, P.A., Chambers, B.J., Chaudri, A.M., McGrath, S.P., Carlton-Smith, C.H., Bacon,
J.R., Campbell, C.D. & Aitken, M.N. (2006) Initial results from a long-term, multi-site field
study of the effects on soil fertility and microbial activity of sludge cakes containing heavy
metals. Soil Use and Management 22, 11-21.

Gibson, C.W.D., Hambler, C. & Brown, V.K. (1992) Changes in spider (Araneae)
assemblages in relation to succession and grazing management. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 29, 132-142.

Godwin, R.J. (2003) Report on soils and soil condition in the Parrett Catchment. NSRI -
University of Cranfield.

Greenwood K.L. MacLeod D.A. & Hutchinson K.J. (1997) Long-term stocking rate effects on
soil physical properties. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 37, 413-419.

Greenwood, K.L., MacLeod, D.A., Scott, J.M., & Hutchinson, K.J. (2001) Changes to soil
physical properties after grazing exclusion. Soil Use and Management, 14, 19-24.

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2007) England’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Services and the
Rationale for an Ecosystem approach. Defra Project NR0107 Draft Full technical Report.

Hamza, M.A., & Anderson, W.K. (2005) Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of
the nature, causes and possible solutions Soil and Tillage Research, 82, 2, 121-145.

Haynes, R.J. & Naidu, R. (1998). Influence of lime, fertiliser and manure applications on soil
organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 51, 123-137.

Heathwaite, A.L., Burt, T.P. & Trudgill, S.T., (1990). Land-use controls on sediment
production in a lowland catchment, south-west England. In: J. Boardman, I.D.L. Foster and
J.A. Dearing (Editors), Soil Erosion on Agricultural Land. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, UK.

Hill, D., Andrews, J., Sotherton, N. & Hawkins, J. (1995). Farmland. In: Sutherland, W.J. and
Hill, D.A. (Eds.), Managing habitats for Conservation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 230-266.

Hill, M.O., Evans, D.F. & Bell, S.A. (1992). Long-term effects of excluding sheep from hill
pastures in North Wales. Journal of Ecology, 80, pp1-13.

Hodgson, J. G. , Montserrat-Marti, G. ,Tallowin, J. R. B. , Thompson, K. , Diaz, S. , Cabido,


M. , Grime, J. P. , Wilson, P. J. , Band, S. R. , Bogard, A. , Cabido, P. , Caceres, D. M. ,
Castro-Diez, P. , Ferrer, C. , Maestro-Martinez, M. , Perez-Rontome, M. C. , Charles, M. ,
Cornelissen, J. H. C. , Dabbert, S. , Perez-Harguindeguy, N. , Krimly, T. , Sijtsma, F. ,
85
Strijker, D. , Vendramini, F. , Guerrero-Campo, J. , Gupta, P. L. , Hynd, A. , Jones, G. ,
Romo-Diez, A. , Rorison, I. H. , De Torres Espuny, L. , Villar-Salvador, P. , Zak, M. R.
(2005). How much will it cost to save grassland diversity? Biological Conservation 122 (2),
263-273.

Hountin, J.A., Couillard, D. & Karam, A. (1997). Soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
contents in maize plots after 14 years of pig slurry applications. Journal of Agricultural
Science, Cambridge 129, 187-191.

Hudson, P.J. & Newborn, D. (1995). A manual of red grouse and moorland management.
Game Conservancy Ltd, Hampshire, UK.

Humphrey, J.W. & Patterson, G.S. (2000). Effects of late summer cattle grazing on the
diversity of riparian pasture vegetation in an upland conifer forest. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 37, 986-996.

IS0208. A theoretical analysis of how the protein and phosphorus requirements of livestock
may best be met. Report prepared for Defra by ADAS, IGER and University of Reading.

Isselstein, J., Jeangros, B. & Pavlu V. (2005) Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted
management of temperate grasslands in Europe - A review Agronomy Research 3(2), 139-
151.

Jagoa, J.G., Davisa, K.L., Copeman, P.J., Ohnstad, I. & Woolford, M.M. (2007)
Supplementary feeding at milking and minimum milking interval effects on cow traffic and
milking performance in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy
Research. Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, R.G. (2005). The conservation management of upland hay meadows in Britain: a
review. Grass and Forage Science, 60, 322-331.

Johns H, Ozdemiroglu E, Hanley N, Colombo S, Hamilton A & Hyde, T. (2006). Eftec report
for Defra. Economic Valuation of Environmental Impacts in the Severely Disadvantaged
Areas.

Johnson, K.A. & Johnson, D.E. (1995). Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal
Science, 73:2483-2492.

Johnston, A.E., McGrath, S.P., Poulton, P.R. & Lane, P.W. (1989). Accumulation and loss of
nitrogen from manure, sludge and compost: long-term experiments at Rothamsted and
Woburn. In: Hansen, J.A.A. and Henriksen, K. (eds). Nitrogen in Organic Wastes Applied to
Soils. Academic Press, London. 126-139.

Johnston, A.E. and Poulton, P.R., Dawson, C.J. and Crawley, M.J. (2005). Soil organic
matter: its importance in sustainable agricultural systems. Proceedings No 565, The
International Fertiliser Society, York, UK. 46pp.

Jorajuria D., Draghi L. and Aragon A. (1997). The effect of vehicle weight on the distribution
of compaction with depth and the yield of Lolium/Trifolium grassland. Soil Tillage and
Research, 41, 1, 1-12 (12).

Kennedy, D. (1998). Rooting for regeneration. Enact, 6, 4-7

86
King, J., Goodlass, G., Sherlock, J., Chambers, B. & Carter. A (2005). Defra Research in
Agricultural and Environmental Protection between 1990 and 2005: Summary and Analysis.
Defra project ES0127.

Kirkham, F.W. Mountford, J.O. & Wilkins, R.J. (1996). The effects of nitrogen, potassium and
phosphorus addition on the vegetation of a Somerset peat moor under cutting management.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, 1013-1029.

Lake, S., Bullock, J. M. & Hartley, S. (2001). Impacts of livestock grazing on lowland
heathland in the UK. English Nature Journal of Applied Ecology, 22, 423-433.

Langlands J.P. & Bennett I.L. (1973). Stocking intensity and pastoral production. I. Changes
in soil and vegetation of a sown pasture grazed by sheep at different stocking rates. Journal
of Agricultural Science, 81, 193-204.

Larkin, D.J. & Tjeerdema, R.S. (2000). Fate and effects of diazinon. Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 166, 49-82.

Lawes, J.B., Gilbert J.H. & Masters M.T. (1882). Agricultural, botanical and chemical results
of experiments on the mixed herbage of permanent meadow, conducted for more than
twenty years in succession on the same land. Part II. The botanical results. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, (A and B), 173, 1181-1413.

Larsen, W.E., Eynard, A., Hadfas, A. & Lipiec, J. (1994). Control and avoidance of
compaction in practice. In: Soil compaction in crop production (eds B.D. Soane and C. van
Ouwerkerk), 597-625. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Lewis, M. & Beetham, M. (2006). North York Moors Hill Sheep Economic Study 2006. Rural
Business Research Unit, Askham Bryan College.

Lockyer, D.R. (1997). Methane emissions from grazing sheep and calves. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 66, 11-18.

Lovett, D.K., McGilloway, D., Bortolozzo, A., Hawkins, M. Callan, J., Flynn, B. and O'Mara,
F.P. (2006). In vitro fermentation patterns and methane production as influenced by cultivar
and season of harvest of Lolium perenne L. Grass and Forage Science, 61, 9-21.

MA – Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

Madsden, M., Overgaard Nielsen, B., Holter, P., Pedersen, O.C., Brrochner Jespersen, J.,
Vagn Jensen, K.-M., Nansen, P. & Gronvold, J. (1990) Treating cattle with ivermectins:
effects on the fauna and decomposition of dung pats. Journal of Applied Ecology, 27, 1-15.

MAFF. (1998). The Air Code: Code of good agricultural practice for the protection of air.
MAFF publication.

MAFF. (1998). The Soil Code: Code of good agricultural practice for the protection of soil.
MAFF publication.

MAFF. (1998). The Water Code: Code of good agricultural practice for the protection of
water. MAFF publication

MAFF (1999). Site suitability for outdoor pig farming. Pamphlet PB 4444, MAFF Publications
London. Admail 6000, London SW1A 2XX.
87
Marco, A., Quilchano, C. & Blaustein, A.R. (1999). Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in
pondbreeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest, USA. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 18, 2836-2839.

Mateos, G.G., Serrano, M. P. and Lázaro García, R. (2005). Methodologies to reduce N and
P in poultry manure through nutrition. EC Workshop – Nitrogen and phosphorus in livestock
manure. Albert Borschette Conference Centre, Brussels, 14 February 2005.

Mattingley, G.E.G., Chater, M. & Johnston, A.E. (1975). Experiments made on Stackyard
Field, Woburn, 1876-1974. III. Effects of NPK fertilisers and farmyard manure on soil carbon,
nitrogen and organic phosphorus. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1974, Part 2,
61-77.

McCracken, D.I. & Tallowin, J.R. (2004). Swards and structure: the interactions between
farming practices and bird food resources in lowland grasslands. Ibis, 146, 108-114.

McCracken, D.I. (1993). The potential for avermectins to affect wildlife. Veterinary
Parasitology, 48, 273-280.

McHugh, M.M. and Harrod, T.R. (1999). Research on the quantification and causes of
upland erosion. MAFF Review on Soil Protection, Whitehall Place, London.

Menneer,J.C., Ledgard, S. F., Mclay, C. D. A. & Silvester, W. B. (2005). The effects of


treading by dairy cows during wet soil conditions on white clover productivity, growth and
morphology in a white clover-perennial ryegrass pasture. Grass and Forage Science 60, 46-
58.

Merriman, R (2007). Environment Agency. Personal Communication.

Miller, J.A., Kunz, S.E., Oehlar, D.D. & Miller, RW. (1981). Larvicidal activity of Merck MK-
933, an avermectin, against the horn fly, stable fly, face fly, and house fly. J. Econ. Entomol.
74, 608-611.

Milne J.A. & Grant, S.A. (1987). Sheep management on heather moorland. In: Efficient
Sheep Production. Occasional Symposium of the British Grassland Society. Ed. Pollot, G.
The Lavenham Press.

Milne, R.M. & Haynes, R.J. (2004). Comparative effects of annual and permanent dairy
pastures on soil physical properties in the Tsitsikamma region of South Africa. Soil Use and
Management, 20, 1, 81-88.

Milsom, T.P., Aegerter, J., Bishop, J.D., Allcock, J.A., Barker, D., Boatman, N.D., Hill, V.,
Jones, N., Marshall, J., McKay, H.V., Moore, N.P. & Robertson, P.A. (2003). Review of hill-
edge habitats in the uplands of England and Wales. Project No BD1235. Report to Defra.

Milsom, T.P., Langton, S.D., Parkin, W.K., Allen, D.S., Bishop, J.D, Hart, J.D. & Moore, N.P.
(2001). Habitat models of bird species' distribution: an aid to the management of coastal
grazing marshes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 706-727.

Misselbrook, T. H., Smith, K. A., Jackson, D. R. & Gilhepsy, S. L. (2004). Ammonia


Emissions from Irrigation of Dilute Pig Slurries. Biosystems Engineering. 89 (4) 473-484

88
Misselbrook, T.H., Chadwick, D.R., Chambers, B.J., Smith, K.A., Williams, J., Demmers,
T.G.M. & Sneath, R.W. (2006). Inventory of ammonia emissions from UK agriculture 2005.
Defra Contract AC0102, November 2006, 32pp

Mulholland, B. & Fullen, M.A. (1991). Cattle trampling and soil compaction on loamy sands.
Soil Use and Management, 7, 189-193.

National Expert Group on Transboundary Air Pollution (NAGTAP) (2001) Transboundary Air
Pollution: Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone in the UK.

National Trust (2001). Farming Forward: Towards Sustainable Farming.

Nicholson, F.A. (2001). Heavy metal and nutrient balances for pig and poultry production
systems. Final CSG15 project report to MAFF. Research contract SP0129 (available via
Defra website: http://www.defra.gsi.gov.uk)

Nicholson, F. A., Smith, S. R., Alloway, B. J., Carlton-Smith, C. & Chambers, B. J. (2003).
An inventory of heavy metals inputs to agricultural soils in England and Wales. Science of
the Total Environment 311, 205-219.

NT0601:To develop strategies to reduce N loss from grassland (new codes


NT1602/NT1902). Defra.

NT0605: To quantify nitrate leaching from swards continuously grazed by cattle. Defra.

NT0802: To develop a predictive capacity for N loss from grassland (New code NT1806).
Defra.

NT1005: Phosphorus loss from grassland soils. Defra.

NT1011: P losses from organic manures. Defra.

NT1012: Phosphate loss from cracking clay soils. Defra.

NT1016: Phosphorus transfer from grassland soils (continuation of NT1005). Defra.

NT1028: Measurements of phosphorus loss from manures. Defra.

NT1032: Quantification of P transfers from soil following tillage and re-seed of grassland
swards. Defra.

NT1041: Phosphorus losses from a lowland dairy farm. Defra.

NT1043: Scaling up estimates of phosphorus transfer effects from grassland plot to


catchment scale. Defra.

NT1319: Losses of nitrogen as dissolved organic N. Defra.

NT1401: Open Competition: Use of injectors and low trajectory spreaders. Defra.

NT1402: To improve guidelines on waste management practices which will minimise the
risk….(NT0301). Defra.

89
NT1404: Grassland manuring. Nitrogen loss and efficiency from use of organic manures
(previously NT0301). Defra.

NT1405: N loss from organic manures (previously NT0309). Defra.

NT1410: Nitrate leaching risk from livestock manures (Previously NT0310). Defra.

NT1415: Improved precision of manure and slurry application. Defra.

NT1421: Economic evaluation of improved manure application technique (for AU NT20).


Defra.

NT1518: The distribution of soluble organic nitrogen in arable soils. Defra.

NT1602:Understanding the grassland nitrogen cycle in order to improve fertiliser


recommendations (previously NT 0601). Defra.

NT1801: Additional measurements (organic soluble N and denitrificaton) from integrated N


grassland farmlets. Defra.

NT1829: Further N cycle studies on farmlets. Defra.

NT1842: Desk studies which use models to predict N losses from farming systems. Defra.

NT1902: Control over losses of nitrogen from grassland soils (Previously NT0601). Defra.

NT1916: Leaching of soluble organic N. Defra.

NT2001: Integration of animal manures in crop and livestock farming systems: nutrient
demonstration farms. Defra.

NT2002: Effect of manure spreading imprecision on crop yield. Defra.

NT2004: Minimising nitrogen losses in drainage water following slurry applications to drained
clay soils (add-on to NT1028). Defra.

NT2511: Cost curve of nitrate mitigation options. Defra.

NT2603 - The behaviour of some different fertiliser-N materials - Initial field experiments

NT2604 - Ammonia emissions from nitrogen fertilisers: windtunnel construction

NT2605 - The behaviour of some different fertiliser-N materials - Main experiments

OC8906: Nitrogen leaching risk from livestock manures. Defra.

OC9012: Protozoan, bacterial and viral pathogens, farm animal wastes, and water. Defra.

Oldham, R.S., Latham, D.M., Hilton-Brown, D., Towns, M., Cooke, A.S. & Burn, A. (1997).
The effect of ammonium nitrate fertiliser on frog (Rana temporaria) survival. Agricultural
Ecosystems and Environment, 61, 69-74.

Ortiz-Santaliestra, M.E., Marco, A., Fernandez, M.J. & Lizana, M. (2006).


90
Influence of developmental stage on sensitivity to ammonium nitrate of aquatic stages of
amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25, 105-111.

Patto, P. M., Clement, C. R. & Forbes, T. J. (1978). Grassland poaching in England and
Wales. Permanent Grassland Studies 2. Joint Permanent Pastures Group, Hurley.

Parry, H., Ramwell, C., Bishop, J., Cuthbertson, A., Boatman, N., Gaskell, P., Dwyer, J.,
Mills, J., & Ingram, J., (2006) Quantitative approaches to assessment of farm level changes
and implications for the environment. Defra Project OBS 03.

PE0102: Rationalising risk and scaling-up of on-farm practices to classify rates of


phosphorus transfer to grassland catchments. Defra.

PE0111: Towards understanding factors controlling transfer of phosphorus within and from
agricultural fields. Defra.

PE0205: Strategic placement and design of buffering features for sediment and P in the
landscape.

PE0206: Mitigation Options for Phosphorus and Sediment (MOPS). Defra.

Persson, J. & Kirchmann, H. (1994). Carbon and nitrogen in arable soils as affected by
supply of N fertilisers and organic manures. Agriculture, Ecosystems, Environment 51, 249-
255.

Pietola,L., Horn, R. & Yli-Halla, M. (2005). Effects of trampling by cattle on the hydraulic and
mechanical properties of soil. Soil & Tillage Research 82, 99-108.

Ramirez-Restrepo, C.A. & Barry, T.N. (2005). Alternative temperate forages containing
secondary compounds for improving sustainable productivity in grazing ruminants. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 120, 179-201.

Rands, M.R.W. and Sotherton, N.W. (1986). Pesticide use on cereal crops and changes in
the abundance of butterflies on arable farmland in Britain. Biological Conservation, 36, 71-
82.

RB209 (2000) Fertiliser Recommendations for Agricultural and Horticultural Crops.

Read, H. & Williams, R. (1997). Rare breeds and public access - do they mix? Enact, 5,12-
14.

Read, H. (1994). Native breeds in Burnham Beeches. Enact, 2, 4-6.

Read, H., (2000) Veteran Trees - A guide to good management English Nature.

Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (1988) Survival and reproduction of Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera
muscidae) and a scarabaeine dung beetle in dung cattle treated with avermectin B1. Journal
of Australian Entomological Society, 27, 175-178.

Ridsdill-Smith, T.J. (1993). Effects of avermectin residues in cattle dung on dung beetle
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) reproduction and survival. Veterinary Parasitology, 48, 127-137.

Robinson, J. J. (2002). Review of Nutritional Standards for Sheep. Report for BSAS.

91
Rook, A.J., Dumont, B., Isselstein, J., Osoro, K., Wallis de Vries, M.F.,
Parente, G., Mills, J. (2004). Matching type of grazing animal to desired biological outcomes
- a review Biological Conservation 119 (2) 137-150.

Rushton, S.P., Luff, M.L. and Eyre, M.D. (1989). The effects of pasture improvement on the
ground beetle and spider communities of upland grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26,
489-503.

Schmidt, C.D. (1983). Activity of an avermectin against selected insects in aging manure.
Environmental Entomology, 12, 455-457.

Schmitt,H. (2005). The effects of veterinary antibiotics on soil microbial communities.


Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Biologie, IRAS.

Scotland's Moorland Forum (2003). Principles of Moorland Management.

Shaw, S.C., Wheeler, B.D., Kirby, P., Phillipson, P. & Edmunds, R. (1996). Literature review
of the historical effects of burning and grazing of blanket bog and upland wet heath. English
Nature Research Reports No 172. English Nature and Counrtyside Council for Wales.

Shepherd, M.A., Goodlass, G., Cottrill, B.R., Newell Price, J.P., & Lord, E.I. (2006).
Catchment Sensitive Farming National N and P balances. Report for Defra Project No.
WQ0106.

Shore, L.S., Shemesh, M. & Cohen, R. (1988). The role of oestradial and oestrone in
chicken manure silage in hyperoestrogenism in cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal, 65, 67.

Shrubb, M. (2003). Birds, scythes and combines. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Silcock, P., Swales, V. & Dwyer, J. (2005). Assessment of the impact of CAP reform and
other key policies on upland farms and land use implications in both SDA and DA of
England. Final Report to Defra.

Sitaula, B.K., Hansen, S., Sitaula, J. I. B. & Bakken, L. R. (2000) Methane oxidation
potentials and fluxes in agricultural soil: Effects of fertilisation and soil compaction.
Biogeochemistry, 48, 323-339.

Smith, K.A., Brewer, A.J., Dauven, A. & Wilson, D.W. (2000). A survey of the production and
use of animal manures in England and Wales. I. Pig manure. Soil Use and Management. 16,
2, 124-132 (9).

Smith, K. A., Jackson, D. R. & Metcalfe, J. P. (2001). Low cost aerobic stabilisation of poultry
layer manure. “Sustainable handling and utilisation of livestock manure from animals to
plants”. (Eds H. Benny Rom & C. G. Sorensen). Proceedings of NJF Seminar no 320,
Denmark, 16-19 Jan 2001. DIAS report no 21 42-50. Defra Project WA0638.

Smith, R.S. & Rushton, S.P. (1994). The effects of grazing management on the vegetation
of mesotrophic (meadow) grassland in Northern England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31,
13-24.

Smith, R.S., Buckingham H., Bullard M.J., Shiel R.S. & Younger, A. (1996). The
conservation management of mesotrophic (meadow) grassland in northern England. I.
Effects of grazing, cutting date and fertilizer on the vegetation of a traditionally managed
sward. Grass and Forage Science, 51, 278-291.
92
Soane, B. D., Godwin, R. J. Marks, M.J. & Spoor, G. (1987). Crop and soil responses to
deep incorporation of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers and subsequent soil
management on a range of soil types. Part I: Response to arable crops. Soil Use and
Management 3, 3, 123 - 130.

Sommer, C. & Overgaard Nielsen, B. (1992). Larvae of the dung beetle Onthophagus
gazella F. (Col., Scarabaeidae) exposed to lethal and sublethal ivermectin concentrations.
Journal of Applied Entomology, 114, 502-509.

Sommer, C., Gronvold, J., Holter, P. & Nansen, P. (1993). Effect of ivermectin on two
afrotropical beetles Onthophagus gazella and Diastellopalpus quinquedens (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae). Veterinary Parasitology, 48, 171-179.

Sommer, C., Steffansen, B., Overgaard Nielsen, B., Grønvold, J., Kagn-Jensen, K.M.,
Brøchner Jespersen, J., Springborg, J. & Nansen, P. (1992). Ivermectin excreted in cattle
dung after sub-cutaneous injection or pour-on treatment:concentrations and impact on dung
fauna. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 82, 257-264.

SP0516: Heavy Metal Content of Animal Manures and Implications for Soil Fertility. Defra.

Stevens, K. B., Gilbert, J., Strachan, W. D., Robertson, J., Johnston, A. M. & Pfeiffer, D.U.
(2007). Characteristics of commercial pig farms in Great Britain and their use of
antimicrobials. The Veterinary Record, 161, 45-52.

Stewart, G.B. & Pullin, A.S. (2006). Does sheep-grazing degrade unimproved neutral
grasslands managed as pasture in lowland Britain? Systematic Review No. 15. Centre for
Evidence-Based Conservation, Birmingham, UK.

Strong, L. (1993). Overview: the impact of avermectins on pastureland ecology. Veterinary


Parasitology, 48, 3-17.

Strong, L. & Brown, T.A. (1987). Avermectins in insect control and biology: a review. Bulletin
of Entomological Research, 77, 357-389.

Strong, L. & James, S. (1993). Some effects of ivermectin on the yellow dung fly,
Scatophaga stercoraria. Veterinary Parasitology, 48, 181-191.

Strong, L. & Wall, R. (1994). Effects of ivermectin and moxidectin on the insects of cattle
dung. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 84, 403-409.

Tallowin, J.R.B., Rook, A.J. & Rutter, S.M. (2005). Impact of grazing management on
biodiversity of grasslands. Animal Science 81: 193-198.

Tang, S., Sutton, M., van Dijk, N., Bealey, B., Theobald, M., Fowler, M.
and Baker, S. (2005). Monitoring of ammonia concentrations in the United Kingdom.
Presentation summaries from the site operators meeting Contract: EPG 1/3/136, March
2005.

Tapper, S.C. & Barnes, R.F.W. (1986). Influence of farming practice on the ecology of the
brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Journal of Applied Ecology, 23: 39-52.

Taylor, S.M. (1999). Sheep scab - environmental considerations of treatment with


doramectin. Veterinary Parasitology, 83, 309-317.
93
Thiele-Bruhn,S. & Beck, I. C. (2005). Effects of sulfonamide and tetracycline antibiotics on
soil microbial activity and microbial biomass. Chemosphere 59, 457-465.

Thomas, C.F.G. & Jepson, P.C. (1997). Field-scale effects of farming practices on linyphiid
spider populations in grass and cereals. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 84, 59-69.
225.

Thomas, J. A., (1986). Butterflies of the British Isles, Hamlyn Guide.

Thomas, J.A. (1984). The conservation of butterflies in temperate countries: past efforts and
lessons for the future. In: The Biology of Butterflies (Eds.: Ackery, P. and Vane-Wright, R. ).
Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 334-353.

Thompson, D.B.A., MacDonald, A.J., Marsden, J.H. & Galbraith, C.A. (1995). Upland
heather moorland in Great Britain: a review of international importance, vegetation change
and some objectives for nature conservation. Biological Conservation, 71: 163-78.

Thompson, D.B.A., Macdonald, A.J., Marsden, J.H. & Galbraith, C.A. (1995). Upland heather
moorland in Great Britain - a review of international importance, vegetation change and
some objectives for nature conservation. Biological Conservation, 71,163-178.

Treweek, J., Jose, P & Benstead, P. (1997). The wet grassland guide: managing floodplain
and coastal wet grasslands for wildlife. Sandy: RSPB.

Van Meirvenne, M., Pannier, J., Hofman, G. & Louwagie, G. (1996). Regional
characterisation of the long-term change in soil organic carbon under intensive agriculture.
Soil Use and Management 12, 86-94.

Van Wieren, S.E. (1989). The management of populations of large mammals. In:
SPELLERBERG, I.F., GOLDSMITH, F.B. & MORRIS, M.G., eds. The 31st Symposium of
the British Ecological Society. Southampton: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

VICH (2000) Environmental impact assessment (EIAs) for veterinary medicinal products
(VMPs) – Phase 1. VICH GL6 (Ecotoxicity Phase 1), June 2000, For Implementation at
Phase 7.

Vigerust, E. & Selmer-Olsen, A.R. (1986) Basis of metal limits relevant to sludge utilisation.
In: Davis, R.D., Haeni, H. and L’Hermite, P. (eds), Factors Influencing Sludge Utilization
Practices in Europe. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Barking. Pp. 26-42.

Vlaeminck, B., Fievez, V., Cabrita, A.R.J., Fonseca, A.J.M. & Dewhurst, R.J. (2006). Factors
affecting odd and branched-chain fatty acids in milk: A review. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 131, 389-417.

WA0604: To measure the influence of livestock waste application on gaseous emissions


from land and to identify likely controls. Defra.

WA0651 Ammonia fluxes within broiler litter and layer manure management systems. Defra

WA0656: Implications of potential measures to control pathogens associated with livestock


manure management. Defra.

94
WA0712: Management techniques to minimise ammonia emissions during storage and land
spreading of poultry manures. Defra.

WA0716: Management techniques to minimise ammonia emissions from solid manures.


Defra.

WA0719: Impact of vegetation and/or other on-farm features on net ammonia emissions
from livestock farms (AMBER). Defra.

WA0720 Demonstrating opportunities for reducing ammonia emissions from pig housing
(CTE003). Defra.

WA0804: Routes by which pathogens associated with livestock slurries & manure may be
transferred from farm to wider environment. Defra.

Wall, R. and Strong, L. (1987). Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the antiparasitic
drug ivermectin. Nature. 327, 418-421.

Wallis De Vries, M. F., Tallowin, J. R. B., Dulphy, J. P., Sayer, M., Diana, E. (2005). Effects
of livestock breed and stocking rate on sustainable grazing systems: butterfly diversity and
abundance Grassland Science in Europe, 10, 227-230.

Welch, D. (1984). Studies on the grazing of heather moorlands in north-east Scotland. II.
Response of heather. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 197-207.

Willatt S.T. & Pullar D.M. (1983). Changes in soil physical properties under grazed pastures.
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 22, 343-348.

Williams, A. G., Audsley, E. & Sandars, D. L. (2006). Determining the environmental burdens
and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main
Report for Defra Research Project IS0205. Available at www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk or
www.defra.gov.uk.

Williams, E.D. (1978). Botanical composition of the Park Grass Plots at Rothamsted 1856 -
1976. Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.

Wilson, J.D., Morris, A. J., Arroyo, B. E., Clark, S. C. & Bradbury, R. B. (1999) A review of
the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern
Europe in relation to agricultural change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 75, pp.
13-30.

Withers, P.J.A., Edwards, A.C. & Foy, R.H. (2001). Phosphorus cycling in UK agriculture
and implications for phosphorus loss from soil. Soil Use and Management 17:139-149.

Withers, P.J.A. and Bailey, G.A. (2003) Sediment and phosphorus transfer in overland flow
from a maize field receiving manure. Soil Use and Management. 19, 1, 28-35.

Woiwod, I.P. & Stewart, A.J.A. (1990). Butterflies and moths - migration in the agricultural
environment. In: Species Dispersal in Agricultural Habitats (Eds.: Bruce, R.G.H. and
Howard, D.C. ), Belhaven Press, London, UK, pp. 189-202.

WU0101: Opportunities for Reducing Water Use in Agriculture. Thompson, A. J., King, J. A.,
Smith, K. A. & Tiffin, D. H., June 2007

95
WU0102: Water Use in Agriculture, Establishing a baseline.

Younger, A. & Smith, R.S. (1994). Hay meadow management in the Pennine Dales,
Northern England. In: R.J. Haggar and S. Peel (Eds.) Grassland Management and Nature
Conservation. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society Occasional Symposium No. 28.
pp. 64-73. Reading: British Grassland Society.

96

You might also like