peer-reviewed ; A major responsibility of the research staff at Johnstown Castle has been the publication of leaflets, booklets and manuals giving nutrient and trace element advice for grassland and crops. This began in the 1940s and was the scientific basis for soil analysis (Coulter 2000), since then, further updates were published by Coulter in 2004 (2nd edition), by Coulter and Lalor in 2008 (3rd edition) and by Wall and Plunkett in 2016 (4th edition. This version has now been enhanced and expanded to produce the present volume (5 th edition) published by Wall and Plunkett in 2020. New sections and information and updates based on the latest scientific findings have been made to grassland fertiliser advice section including nitrogen advice for grass–white clover swards. Many of the chapters have been reorganised to make them easier to consult and the advice and tables have been redesigned to be compliant with the latest European and Irish legislation.
AbstractGrowing sustainability demands on land have a high knowledge requirement across multiple scientific domains. Exploring networks can expose opportunities for targeting. Using mixed-methods combining social network analysis (SNA) and surveys, networks for key soil functions in case studies in Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands are explored. We find a diversity of contrasting networks that reflect local conditions, sustainability challenges and governance structure. Farmers were found to occupy a central role in the agri-environmental governance network. A comparison of the SNA and survey results indicate low acceptance of messages from many central actors indicating scope to better harness the network for sustainable land management. The source of the messages was important when it came to the implementation of farm management actions. Two pathways for enhanced farmer uptake of multi-functionality are proposed that have wider application are; to increase trust between farmers and actors that are agents of multi-functional messages and/or to increase the bundling or multi-functionality of messages (mandate) of actors trusted by farmers.
peer-reviewed ; This analysis quantifies the potential to abate national ammonia (NH3) emissions up to 2030. This report is an updated marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) analysis where Teagasc has quantified the abatement potential of a range of ammonia mitigation measures, as well as their associated costs/benefits (see Lanigan et al. 2015 for previous analysis). The objective of this analysis is to quantify the extent and costs associated with meeting future ammonia emission targets that were negotiated as part of the amended Clean Air Policy Package. The requirement to reduce ammonia emissions is urgent, both in terms of compliance with the National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD), and as a principal loss pathway for agricultural nitrogen (N). Improvement of N efficiency is a key focus for improving farm efficiency and sustainability as well as reducing the ammonia, nitrate and greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of agriculture. This is particularly relevant in the context of the national strategies on the development of the agri-food sector: Food Wise 2025, Ag-food strategy 2030 and Ag-Climatise (currently under development) and the newly unveiled EU Farm to Fork Strategy, which is a part of the European Green Deal. Under the baseline scenario (S1), agricultural ammonia emissions are projected to increase by 9% (without any mitigation) by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. While these increases are small in comparison to the targeted increase in agricultural output, they will provide a major challenge to meeting emissions targets, particularly as agriculture comprises over 99% of national emissions. The analysis presented in this report seeks to quantify the ammonia mitigation potential under likely uptake pathways. This is not an exhaustive analysis of all mitigation measures, but represents an assessment of best available techniques, based on scientific, peer-reviewed research carried out by Teagasc and associated national and international research partners. Indeed, any future changes in the sector or in the national emission inventory calculations will require further analysis of the applicability of ammonia mitigation techniques, particularly in terms of housing and storage but also in the context of other reactive N1 emissions. It should also be noted that some mitigation measures, particularly those related to nitrogen application to soils, could result in either higher greenhouse gas emissions or higher nitrate leaching. Compared to a future where no mitigation measures are deployed to address emissions, by 2030 the average technical abatement2 potential was estimated to be approximately 15.26 kt NH3 at a net cost of €10.86 million per annum. However, it should be noted that the net cost (€10.86 million) is comprised of 6 measures that are cost negative (-€22.21 million) and 7 measures that are cost positive (€33.07) and that some of the cost negative measures are predicated on efficiency gains driven by best management practice adoption (e.g. liming and clover measures with associate chemical N reductions). Amongst the thirteen mitigation measures selected for this analysis, 80% of the mitigation potential can be achieved by the full implementation of the mitigation pathways for protected urea and low emission slurry spreading (LESS) techniques for bovines. It should be stressed that this is an assessment of the maximum abatement potential and realising this level of abatement in practice will be extremely challenging. Any increase in agricultural activity beyond the baseline scenario will increase absolute emissions. The level of mitigation achievable is based on the draft AgClimatise measures any delay or reduction in the uptake of these measures will reduce the mitigation achieved. It must also be ensured that all mitigation measures should, where possible, be synergistic with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and N loss to water.
