logo

Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching, Eric and Maxine Watson (Canterbury)

Topics

10 min read

Farm facts What did you get out? Why did you decide to join? Why it's important? Farmers & industry benefit Annual summary N leaching and drainage Fertiliser N applied and uptake Further information

Eric and Maxine, arable farmers from Wakanui, contributed to the FRNL research in Canterbury. Their 481 ha farm has specific soil types, an average rainfall of 600 mm, and they mainly grow vegetable and seed crops. Joining the FRNL programme made them re-evaluate their practices, especially around minimising potential nitrogen (N) leaching using cover crops. They've become more conscious of soil mineral nitrogen and the benefits of not leaving ground fallow. Joining the programme was about studying best practices. It's crucial to understand N usage for the environment and maintain control over application rates. Proper scientific data can guide future regulations and practices.

Farm facts

Area:

481 ha

Dominant soils:

Wakanui silt loam, Wakanui clay loam, and Templeton silt loam.

Average rainfall:

approx. 600 mm

Main crops:

vegetable seed crops, ryegrass and plantain seed crops, wheat

Trading as:

Rangitata Holdings Limited

What did you get out of the FRNL programme?

  • Being involved in the FRNL programme has made us think more about why we do the things we do and concentrated our minds on where we could make improvements. Prior to being involved in the programme we did use cover crops to a degree, but seeing the modelled benefits with regard to minimising potential leaching has made us appreciate the worth of implementing the procedure, weather permitting of course! Our marketable crops will always have to take precedence in the autumn sowing period. We would always like to know more about what actually remains in the soils post-harvest and through the winter period.
  • FRNL made us more aware of soil mineral nitrogen (N), and particularly of not leaving ground fallow if at all possible – though the weather is the biggest dictator in this!
  • We are pleased with the results for plantain – especially as we grow the seed – but seriously, good that this research has produced such a positive effect.

Why did you decide to join the programme?

“It seemed like a good idea to make a controlled study of what good operators do.”

Why do you think it's important?

"It’s very important environmentally to know what’s happening N-wise. If we can’t quantify N usage in plant growth without compromising yield, we risk losing control of application rates."

How will farmers and the industry benefit?

“If the programme provides good scientific data about how and when plants use N in its various forms, voluntary adoption of the resulting recommendations by the wider farming community is more likely, thus making any future regulation match good practice.”

Annual summary of modelling study

Annual summary

The Simple Crop Resource Uptake Model operating within the Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (SCRUM-APSIM) was used to simulate N (N) balances at Eric and Maxine’s farm. The APSIM predicted data indicated that paddocks with high N leaching (≥30 kg N/ha) had greater residual soil N after the summer harvest.

Modelling outcomes of two seasons on the farm identified the following factors that increased the amount of leachable soil N:

  • application of N fertiliser in excess of crop N requirements
  • mineralisation of N-rich crop residues
  • paddocks remaining fallow during the high N leaching risk period (autumn-winter), and
  • “leaky” soils e.g. the free-draining Eyre and Lismore soils.

Leaching was greater when at least two of these factors were in play. For example, excessive N application to spring-sown crops resulted in high residual soil N at risk of leaching if no crops were sown after the summer harvest to take up the N. Similarly, mineralised N from residues retained in paddocks was available for leaching if there was no vegetation in autumn/winter to take up water and N to reduce drainage and N leaching.

N leaching mitigation options that reduced N leaching and increased gross margins included:

  • growing oats as a cover/catch crop on paddocks that remained fallow after summer harvest
  • using lower rates of fertiliser N for high soil residual N paddocks

Heavy rainfall during the autumn period contributed to a high number of fallow paddocks in the 2014-15 season. The absence of vegetation to take up soil N, combined with the high rainfall resulted in high leaching losses. Reductions in N leaching on this farm were achieved by reducing the area of the farm in fallow for the subsequent seasons. It is important to note that the use of catch crops to mop up excessive soil N may not always be guaranteed because it is subject to weather conditions. Therefore, using fertiliser recommendation systems which calculate crop fertiliser N requirements that account for soil mineralisation could be a more reliable approach to reducing soil N at risk of leaching during autumn and winter.

Overall, results have shown that leaching is mainly influenced by rainfall through its impact on drainage, but farm management practices determine the amount of soil N at risk of leaching. Strategies that can reduce the amount of soil N available for leaching include: sowing catch crops immediately after the summer harvest to mop up residual soil N or N mineralised from soil organic matter and crop residues, and reduced N fertiliser use by calculating requirements with a recommendation system that accounts for soil mineralisation.

N leaching and drainage

The below table shows N leaching and drainage over five seasons (season = 01 Apr – 31 Mar) as estimated by SCRUM-APSIM at a depth of 150cm.

Paddock Leaching (kg N/ha) Drainage (mm)
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
RH1 39.6 23.0 5.8 18.0 5.2 207 213 62 248 171
RH2 18.2 4.3 0.2 9.2 37.4 237 338 10 337 279
RH2A 10.7 23.0 0.1 31.1 3.0 386 212 1 513 112
RH3 7.6 20.7 26.2 30.8 7.2 208 135 73 485 239
RH4 74.2 48.9 0.3 27.7 4.0 255 223 2 460 205
RH5 7.2 15.2 1.6 18.2 21.5 400 209 24 218 196
RH6 51.6 5.4 4.7 21.8 5.0 333 60 39 349 61
RH7 18.6 7.9 4.4 20.0 6.9 178 75 33 263 141
RH8_12 79.2 9.8 9.2 41.5 51.0 402 186 167 429 187
RH9A 13.7 4.9 2.5 31.5 15.9 256 86 70 333 191
RH9B 14.3 8.4 7.7 24.8 13.5 293 111 21 491 183
RH10 53.3 10.2 3.6 7.9 20.5 416 262 47 312 289
RH11A 8.9 7.8 45.9 31.1 14.8 160 137 132 398 151
RH11B 8.9 21.8 54.5 43.6 21.2 160 149 133 323 146
RH13 34.9 19.1 71.3 39.6 7.2 263 141 151 316 139
RH14 7.7 30.3 4.3 12.4 6.8 172 300 202 374 128
RH15 60.5 26.8 10.3 15.6 26.8 288 283 45 337 201
RH16 9.0 0.8 0.0 8.1 22.9 146 11 0 310 126
RH17 24.7 51.5 1.6 4.0 14.8 227 303 14 381 121
RH18 6.3 2.7 0.6 13.4 14.7 189 59 11 431 124
RH19 24.6 1.1 4.0 8.5 14.4 149 85 69 423 238
RH20 56.0 7.4 0.5 7.6 7.1 528 137 50 474 134
RH21 28.1 52.6 5.9 11.5 4.8 129 251 125 236 109
Whole-farm average 33.7 16.2 9.5 19.5 16.9 284 178 71 384 173

Fertiliser N applied and N uptake

The below table shows fertiliser application and N uptake (as estimated by SCRUM-APSIM) over five seasons (season = 01 Apr – 31 Mar).

Paddock Applied fertiliser (kg N/ha) N Uptake (kg N/ha)
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
RH1 287 95 0 ̶ 0 342 101 125 ̶ 80
RH2 268 189 253 209 57 358 117 357 180 176
RH2A 340 182 112 94 203 258 254 199 220 251
RH3 266 373 111 179 141 229 357 149 275 193
RH4 19 94 65 114 90 73 215 157 108 148
RH5 321 79 304 151 96 234 80 343 230 171
RH6 290 15 304 108 191 156 222 403 230 234
RH7 377 57 130 172 57 345 265 173 203 140
RH8_12 216 150 146 283 268 151 150 130 347 341
RH9A 63 341 124 280 81 73 352 210 333 134
RH9B 134 341 0 280 117 132 353 134 317 125
RH10 182 169 396 ̶ 96 141 109 225 ̶ 122
RH11A 165 341 111 15 224 223 349 191 44 317
RH11B 186 341 111 122 57 165 349 181 120 265
RH13 219 341 111 72 257 264 358 236 161 328
RH14 272 205 131 128 192 331 165 140 267 315
RH15 157 150 258 98 100 98 116 404 138 142
RH16 327 249 184 118 212 335 326 258 125 314
RH17 230 182 253 158 110 355 80 348 102 310
RH18 331 58 181 118 212 343 218 219 100 323
RH19 202 92 230 200 40 234 64 238 212 139
RH20 368 239 0 168 23 265 257 60 233 68
RH21 203 0 230 188 185 266 200 273 254 267
Whole-farm average 248 183 167 161 129 238 205 217 198 210

Demonstrations on farm

Estimating N fertiliser rates

The industry-agreed good management practice for nutrient management is to “Manage the amount and timing of fertiliser inputs, taking account of all sources of nutrients, to match plant requirements and minimise risk of losses”. To do this with confidence, farmers require reliable information and methods for working out how much fertiliser to apply to their crops.

Comparisons were carried out in crops sown in spring 2017 comparing farmers’ current N application rates with APSIM forecasts based on deep soil mineral N sampling. Models like APSIM use a mass balance approach to determine how much fertiliser should be applied to the crop to achieve its potential yield. Paddocks were selected and divided into two sections to demonstrate crop performance using farmer- and model-estimated fertiliser N application rates.

Soil mineral N tests give a measure of N available for plant uptake and are used to improve fertiliser N predictions. The anaerobically mineralizable N (AMN) test gives a measure of the N that will become available over the growing season. These measurements can be costly and time consuming, so for soil mineral N, one method which may overcome some of this is the ‘quick test’. This is an in-field approach which utilises a test strip and a simple colorimetric scale which can be used to quantify soil solution nitrate-N concentrations. These are currently being validated as part of another project and were used to help forecast N fertiliser required on this farm in addition to the APSIM estimates.

APSIM predicted, quick test predicted, and actual farmer practice fertiliser N rates for the 2017−18 growing season, for the paddocks used in the fertiliser N rates comparison.

Paddock Crop Soil sampling date Pre-sowing soil mineral N (kg/ha) APSIM estimated fertiliser N (kg/ha) Quick test estimated fertiliser N (kg/ha) Farmer fertiliser N (kg/ha)
RH3 Barley 23 Aug 17 82.5 140 160 205
RH4 Barley 23 Aug 17 47.3 170 170 197

Paddock sections that received model-estimated N rates yielded greater dry matter (DM), had greater N use efficiency, lower soil residual N at harvest, and lower N leaching compared with the paddock sections which used farmer-estimated N rates.

Applied N fertiliser, crop yield, N use efficiency and model-predicted N leaching and residual soil N at harvest for demonstration paddocks in 2017-18 season.

Paddock Crop N rate estimated by Applied N (kg N/ha) Yield (t DM/ha) N use efficiency* Leaching (kg N/ha) Residual N (kg N/ha)
RH3 Barley Farmer Model 205 140 8.99 10.39 0.88 1.34 26 17.2 74 39
RH4 Barley Farmer Model 197 170 9.97 13.51 0.96 1.67 33 29.3 29 19

*NUE = grain DM produced per kg of N applied.

Further information

An article relating to the SCRUM-APSIM modelling work was published in Agronomy NZ.

A full report on the arable monitor farms, including the detailed results of the catch crop demonstrations on this farm and at Chertsey, and an N fertiliser rate demonstration on another arable monitor farm.

Last updated: Aug 2023
Share:
Tags related to “Forages for Reduced Nitrate Leaching, Eric and Maxine Watson (Canterbury)”