General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: research.competitions@defra.gsi.gov.uk

SID 4 Annual/Interim Project Report for Period 04/11-03/12     

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and will be required mainly for research monitoring purposes. However, the contents may be used for the purpose of notifying other bodies or the general public of progress on the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process research reports on its behalf. Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

This form is in Word format and boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

Project details

1. Defra Project code WQ 0125

2. Project titleIdentification and mitigation of the environmental impacts of out-wintering beef and dairy cattle on sacrifice areas.

3. Defra Project Manager Dr Daniel McGonigle

4. Name and address of contractor

     SACWest Mains RoadEdinburgh     Postcode EH9 3JG

5. Contractor’s Project Manager Dr Andrew Barnes

6. Project: start date 1st February 2009

end date 30th January 2014

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 15

Scientific objectives

7. Please list the scientific objectives as set out in the contract. If necessary these can be expressed in an abbreviated form. Indicate where amendments have been agreed with the Defra Project Manager, giving the date of amendment.

The aim of this research is to investigate the impacts of out-wintering cattle on grass sacrifice fields. This broadly consists of three main objectives, namely:-

a) to identify parameters that quantify the impacts of out-wintering cattle in social, economic and environmental terms;

b) to establish the sensitivities of impacts from out-wintering, which emerge from various bio-physical and management strategies; and

c) to evaluate the barriers and potential for adoption of strategies to mitigate against these negative impacts.

Summary of Progress8. Please summarise, in layperson’s terms, scientific progress since the last report/start of the project and

how this relates to the objectives. Please provide information on actual results where possible rather than merely a description of activities.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 2 of 15

In order to achieve the objectives, a multi-disciplinary approach is being used, with each aspect of the project being conducted four discrete phases, as outlined below:

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 3 of 15

Phase 1 has been completed as a separate deliverable. Phase 2 was the monitoring stage and this has been completed and reported in both the first and second year annual report. Data from these two years have been analysed. The modelling approach within Phase 3 has been outlined in a separate deliverable (Milestone 11). The purpose of this report is to outline work conducted in the period 2012-13. The bulk of this work has been in terms of testing the modelling and generating economic and environmental outcomes (Phase 3). This is planned to be complete by November 2013.

1.0. Farmer Awareness and Activity towards Sacrifice FieldsThree workshops were conducted over the period November 2011 to February 2012. The purpose of these workshops was to gather information and opinions on outwintering from farmers and also to provide farmers with information on outwintering practices for sacrifice fields. A questionnaire was also administered with respect to outwintering practices. Specifically, an open question related to the potential risks that farmers perceived from outwintering activities. These were classified into a number of main risk related factors and are illustrated by frequency in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Reasons for Outwintering

The main reasons for outwintering seem to be better health and the lower cost associated with this compared to housing stock. Within the workshops animal health and welfare was frequently discussed. Farmers agreed that this is only achieved through good levels of management and correct choice of field. Other topics discussed in relation to animal health and welfare were provision of good shelter, the management and breeding of hardy stock, as well as strategic use of electric fencing to provide daily feed allocations and protect soil from additional damage.

Economic margins were also discussed, with the farmers, focusing on variable costs specifically. A large number of associations within the discussions related to the reduced labour required, and the peripheral benefits, such as lower costs associated with spreading of farm yard manure. Fixed costs, were not specifically highlighted by the analysis although they are usually seen as the significant driver for outwintering cattle. The farmers agreed that outwintering requires high levels of stockmanship skill to manage the livestock.

During the workshop, participants joined breakout groups and were asked to highlight the main benefits they perceived when outwintering livestock and discuss and agree which were the three most important. These were collated by the farmers themselves and presented to the remainder of the group.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 4 of 15

Figure 2. Risks from outwintering, frequency of response

Clearly, weather and soil after-effects were ranked as the highest risk factors for the farmers. Naturally, the risk parameters increase throughout the winter months due to weather effects, with regard to the remaining impacts outlined in the figure above, e.g. soil damage and run-off of nitrogen to local watercourses. Soil after-effects include soil damage, reseeding/sowing, but other areas emerge, namely the farmer’s approach to stock management, public perception and cross-compliance concerns. The lowest response emerged from the risk of higher costs.

Within the open discussion, the farmers were asked to identify the most practical ways to mitigate the risks they had identified. These statements, compiled directly from farmer statements, are presented in Table 1 below. All three workshops identified choice of field of high importance, which echoes the findings in the previous section with respect to slope and soil type issues but also, stated explicitly in the Northumberland group, the concern for easy access to the field. In many ways this leads to the second mitigation measure identified by this group, where feed could be stored in the field. This was clarified as an activity which could be done pre-wintering and would minimise any environmental impact through access to the field with heavy machinery. This is echoed in the Powys group who emphasised good field preparation pre-wintering and siting field bales to minimise the use of tractors on the field itself.

Table 1. Most practical mitigation measures identified by the farmers within each workshopDorset Powys Northumberland

“Site location” “Careful choice of location” “Restrict to suitable sites with access if required”

“Good Planning” “Good field preparation with feed bales etc. / no tractors” “Store feed in the field”

“Double fence” “Attention to animal welfare” “Keep fields green (restore/regreen)”

The Dorset group offered a more general statement with regard to good planning for the field and the feeding of the animals. There is a parallel with the Northumberland group’s third mitigation measure, which is to ensure that fields are maintained and reseeded after the outwintering period. Only two measures were unique to the regional workshops, namely the need for double fencing highlighted by the Dorset group, and this relates to previously voiced concerns over the threat of escaped stock to the public and to water pollution issues. The Powys workshop participants were the only to explicitly state that attention to animal welfare is an important mitigation measure.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 5 of 15

Hence, this may indicate that a more wider range of risk perception were considered by this group. The farmers were then asked to rank what they perceive to be the least practical mitigation mechanisms. These are shown in Table 2 below, compiled from statements made within the workshops.

Table 2. Least practical mitigation measures identified by the farmersDorset Powys Northumberland“Runback field” “Sowing with contours” “Concrete pads”

“Plan B”“Managing stock for good animal welfare; handling facilities and getting water to stock”

“Ring feeder not static”

“Away from footpaths “ “Suitable fields not available on all

farms” “Strategically placed feed”

There emerges a greater diversity across the regions, compared to the most practical mitigation techniques, and this perhaps reflects the specific economic and ecological context under which these farmers operate their systems. Nevertheless, the more specific nature of these issues may indicate that there must be some heterogeneity in the ways that farmers are engaged with respect to the perceived risks.

Within the Dorset group the provision of a ‘run-back’ field (i.e. a field which offers the cows dry laying areas whilst the grazed field is being regenerated) was deemed to be difficult for farmers as it imposes a further constraint on a limited land resource. This relates to another mitigation measure, namely the provision of an alternative plan (“Plan B”) in response to weather events, animal health events, or significant loss of soil quality during the outwintering period. This emphasises the constraints underlying the outwintering system as, in most cases, farms do not have housing for these cattle. Hence, in extreme events, options for mitigation are limited. Finally, the Dorset group highlighted their concerns towards public perception and safety, by proposing the requirement of the field away from public view, which again was deemed impractical because of the characteristics of the farm itself.

The Powys group highlighted concerns related to animal welfare, specifically the difficulty of maintaining the facilities for handling and supplying water. Rather like the issues of increasing access for feeding, this group felt that ensuring water is constantly supplied to stock may be one of the least practical measures to implement, which reflects another social risk with respect to animal welfare. Establishing contours and sowing with these contours was also felt to be impractical. This approach, especially over sloping ground, ensures that surface run-off is minimised and encourages infiltration of water in the soil. Finally, this group highlighted concerns that some farms do not have the opportunity to provide an appropriate field for outwintering. Clearly, within the perception of risk, field choice is ranked significantly high but, given economic and biophysical constraints, outwintering may be conducted on unsuitable land which could lead to significant environmental hazards.

For the Northumberland group the focus seemed to have been on the impracticability of capital cost and the feeding required to mitigate some of the risks from outwintering. Thus, this group highlighted establishing concrete pads as a means to mitigate damage around the feeder, which incurs a high capital cost and requires high levels of management, as the slurry is produced on the pad and has the potential for creating environmental damage around the edge . In addition, the other least practical mitigation methods revolved around the placing of the feed within the field and moving the feeder to minimise risk to soil damage.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 6 of 15

2.0. Environmental ModellingThe environmental modelling is outlined in a separate deliverable (milestone 11). The main analysis uses the UK-DNDC (UK-tailored DeNitrification-DeComposition) model of carbon and nitrogen cycling between soil, plants and the atmosphere in agricultural systems. In addition the MACRO model was used to simulate effects on different areas of the field.

Progress to date.The effects of weather and pasture management strategies and have been investigated using a series of scenarios. The modelled pasture management strategies with the potential to mitigate N2O were: 1) moving the feeder ring every 25 days during the out-wintering period, and 2) ploughing and re-seeding with grass or arable conversion.

The sensitivities of N2O emissions and N-leaching to soil compaction have also been modelled. To enable modelling of scenarios involving the destruction of grassland by ploughing, at our request Prof. Chang-sheng Li (University of New Hampshire, USA), the developer of UK-DNDC, has added the new feature of a “terminating tillage event”. A number of faults with the new feature and how UK-DNDC handled both input and output data when modelling grazed systems were identified during the previous year, these have been, or are in the process of being rectified by Prof. Chang-sheng Li. We are therefore reporting preliminary results from the scenario testing with UK-DNDC.

The total amount of nitrogen lost through out-wintering (December – mid February) and the subsequent three months (mid February – mid May) is ~37 kg ha-1. Nitrogen is predominantly lost in gaseous forms, ~75% as NH3 and ~5% as N2O, with the balance lost through leaching. Nitrous oxide emissions are driven by a combination of wet soil (in excess of 60% water-filled pore space) and temperature (at least 5°C), consequently under average weather conditions in excess of 75% of the N2O emissions associated with out-wintering occur in the three months after removal of out-wintered cattle.

Spatial concentration of cattle around infrastructure such as feeder rings has the potential to create emission hot spots. However, if the feeder ring is moved around the field to reduce both compaction and the intensity of excretal inputs then the emissions associated with out-wintering are reduced by ~40%. Ammonia emissions are similarly reduced through this mitigation strategy, but the effect on nitrate leaching is negligible. Overall, moving the feeder ring represents the conservation of ~9 kg N ha-1.

In addition to seasonal variation in temperature and precipitation, weather conditions can vary considerably between years. Using 30 years of weather data collected by the Bush (SRUC) meteorological station we determined that precipitation during a two-year period varies by a factor of two between wet periods (~2200 mm for January 2010 - December 2011) and dry periods (e.g. ~1100mm January 1972 – December 1973). Weather data for the calendar years 1972-1973 and 2010-2011 were therefore used to represent “dry” and “wet” conditions respectively. “Average” weather conditions were modelled using the weather data for 1984-1985. The impact of year-to-year variation in weather conditions in terms of overall N losses associated with the out-wintering period and the subsequent three months, are similar to that of moving the feeder ring. Relative to the 37 kg N ha-1 lost during average weather conditions, dry conditions have the potential to reduce total N losses by 3 kg ha-1, whilst wet conditions might increase N losses by 6 kg ha-1. The low temperatures of winter mean that N2O emissions between December and mid February are largely unaffected by variations in rainfall, but those occurring in early spring are reduced for both dry and wet conditions. Nitrous oxide emissions are reduced by dry weather because there is insufficient soil moisture for anaerobic conditions to

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 7 of 15

arise, which in turn favours the loss of ammonia. Under wetter than average conditions, emissions are reduced because of the increased loss of soil N by leaching.

Out-wintering of cattle on grass has the potential to damage sward structure and to compact soil, so changing land use is an attractive management option after out-wintering. We have modelled the effects of ploughing up the grassland in early spring and re-establishing grass-based pasture or conversion to arable cropping (spring barley). Irrespective of the route by which nitrogen is lost from the system, reseeding with grass reduced all N losses by at least 90%, equivalent to ~80 kg N ha-1, relative to continuing with a normal summer grazing regime. Conversion to arable cropping reduced gaseous losses by ~40%; the effect on losses via leaching was negligible.

The rates at which water drains through soil (hydraulic conductivity) and gases enter and leave soil are profoundly influenced by the porosity of soil. Compaction arising from the trampling of wet soil by cattle can therefore modify both gaseous and aqueous losses of soil N. We have conducted a sensitivity analysis covering a range of porosities between a 10% decrease (compacted) and a 10% increase in porosity (uncompacted). Ammonia emissions were least affected, with a 10% change in porosity resulting in a 1% change in NH3 emissions. Both N2O emissions and leaching losses increased as porosity decreased, by 6 and 10% respectively. The reduced permeability of compacted soil not only induces the establishment of anaerobic conditions that favour N2O production, but also results in greater overall retention of soil N which increases the amount of N at risk of being leached. If porosity were to be increased by 10% then N2O emissions would be reduced by 3% and leaching losses by 12%.

Work has progressed further on modelling contamination of water in tile drainage by ammonium and phosphorus, using the MACRO model to simulate different areas of the field. This has shown that the contaminants reach tile drains mainly due to saturated macropore flow in the field areas immediately surrounding heavily compacted areas. Simulated results show weighted mean contaminant concentrations in tiledrain flows from the whole field which are considerably higher than from a parallel simulation assuming uniform distribution of cows in the field and no compacted area.

Model simulations have been completed for both contaminants for two winters at both the Scottish (Bush) site at the Welsh (Trawscoed) site. However, for the second winter at the Welsh site, a large rainfall event took place which caused serious contaminant transport from the main (non-compacted) field area. Again this was due to macropore flow since there was also surface runoff implying that the soil profile was saturated right to the surface. In an alternative simulation in which cows were removed at the beginning of this rainfall event, contamination was reduced to a negligible level. A criterion could be defined as a weighted sum of past rainfall for which if a threshold level is reached cows should immediately be removed from the field. This finding also shows the importance of avoiding outwintering in fields where surface runoff and ponding regularly occur. Further scenario testing simulations will be carried out over longer periods of weather data to indicate how frequently serious contamination events are likely to occur.

3.0. Economic ModellingThe economic modelling approach has been outlined in a separate deliverable related to modelling (milestone 11).

Progress to dateTwo bio-economic models, namely a dynamic programming (DP) model and a linear programming (LP) model, have been further developed and extended. These models are used in identifying the synergies and trade-offs between economics, animal welfare and

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 8 of 15

environmental goals of out-wintering systems by using data based on statistical analysis of suckler herd data. The DP model maximises the Net Present Value from a current suckler cow and future cows over an infinite time horizon by making appropriate replacement decisions. The DP model encompasses financial and biological status of animals such as fertility, age, body condition, and feeding as well as external factors such as commodity market prices. The LP model matches daily sheep and cattle energy demand with grass, forage and concentrate provision, and aims to maximise financial margins subject to farm-specific environment constraints and management decisions made.

The daily energy demand of the beef suckler cow were determined by the project team and added to the LP. The grass feed energy supply component of the model was linked to a dynamic mechanistic crop model (COUP) (Eckerstena H, et al, 2001). with the aim of accounting for the variation in grass development due to changes in weather and fertiliser applications. This enables the LP to establish the average annual profit maximising grazing/feeding strategy month by month for a specific farm and helps with estimating the economic performance of out-wintering systems under alternative bio-economic assumptions and management options and relating these to the range of uses of sacrifice fields in commercial practice.

Preliminary results of the LP modelUsing the COUP model the average daily dry matter of grass produced in in 2010 were predicted and used in the LP model. A total pasture area of 1.8ha was used in the LP that was equal to the total area used for each batch of 12 cows in the out-wintering cow experimental design of 2010/11. The LP was then run given the above assumptions. Results of maximising farm gross margin showed that the optimum stocking rates predicted by the model was lower than the rate used in the experiment (2 cattle generating farm GM over feed of £123 versus 12 cattle used in the experiment). The LP predicted purchased concentrate and forage that costs £110 per year to feed the cattle from September to March whereas only grazing the pasture provides sufficient feed from April to August. Imposing a double stocking rate (i.e. four cattle) to the model (without changing the pasture area) increased the purchased feed in both winter and summer months and the annual feeding costs increased to £469 (Fig.1).

Fig 1. Costs of purchased feed including concentrate and forage per month under two stocking rates of 1.2 (two cattle on 1.8ha) and 2.4 (four cattle on 1.8ha).

By increasing the pasture area, the optimum-stocking rate increased (hence a fixed

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 9 of 15

stocking density) that generated higher farm GM but with considerably greater quantities of purchased/consumed feed that will have environmental consequences (win-lose scenario) (Fig 2). Assuming a fixed pasture area but imposing higher stocking rate resulted in a decreasing farm GM because of greater dependency on purchased concentrate and forage (lose-lose scenario). Using the DP and LP models further scenarios in relation to the impact of out-wintering management on farm economics and environment are under analysis.

Fig 2. Annual farm gross margin (GM) predicted by the LP under two scenarios of: i) increasing pasture area by double increments and ii) fixed pasture area.

4.0. SummaryWe are confident that the environmental and economic components of the modelling are providing robust results on the experimental data collected as part of this project. Our aim is to further test these scenarios with data from the six farms collected during the first two years of this project. The final milestones for the coming year are:

Draft report on environmental and economic modelling Finalised version of Best Practices guidance strategy Final Matrix of economic, environmental and social impacts Final report on environmental and economic modelling Draft Final Report.

Amendments to project9. Are the current scientific objectives appropriate for the remainder of the project?..................YES NO

If NO, explain the reasons for any change giving the financial, staff and time implications.Contractors cannot alter scientific objectives without the agreement of the Defra Project Manager.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 15

Progress in relation to targets10. (a) List the agreed milestones for the year/period under report as set out in the contract or any agreed

contract variation.It is the responsibility of the contractor to check fully that all milestones have been met and to provide a detailed explanation when they have not been achieved.

MilestoneTarget date

Milestones met

Number Title In full On time

15 Initial results of modelling by farm types 01/08/2012 Yes Yes

16 Final Draft of Best Practice Measures 01/12/2012 On-going No

17 Progress Report 01/02/2013 Yes Yes

(b) Do the remaining milestones look realistic?....................................................................YES NO If you have answered NO, please provide an explanation.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 15

Publications and other outputs11. (a) Please give details of any outputs, e.g. published papers/presentations, meetings attended during this

reporting period.

OutputsThe best practice guideline document is being held back until April. This is to align with the results of a) the economic and environmental modelling, and b) the findings of the survey related to farmer perceptions of risks and benefits from outwintering. We have prepared a draft which will be refined and tested with consultants before delivery to the farming community. This will be promoted through the SRUC, IBERS and Eblex beef and dairy specialists. This will be freely available from our websites and advertised at farm events.

We foresee the next year as a means to transmit our results to a wider audience. These include producing briefs and outputs through the SRUC Rural Policy Centre, and the IBERS Grassland Development Centre on various aspects of policy interest. In addition, both organisations have joined a wider consortium known as the Centre for Excellence in UK Food and Farming which amongst its transmission vehicles include the Farming Futures website. These will be the main sources of information provision for transmitting the results of the project.

We have proposed a session on outwintering at the next phase of the SRUC-SEPA Conference within April 2014. Furthermore, we have established links with research institutions which have an interest in outwintering within New Zealand and see this as a way of globalising results.

Papers and Conference Outputs:Barnes, A.P., McCalman, H. and Buckingham, S. (2013). The role of environmental risk perceptions in the adoption of outwintering cattle strategies. Journal of Environmental Management (forthcoming).

Barnes, A.P., Rees, R.M., Morgan, C., Vosough Ahmadi, B., Stott, A., Marley, C.L.., Topp, C.F.E., Hyslop, J.J. A framework for understanding the impacts of outwintering on grassland farming systems (Submitted)

Vosough Ahmadi, B., Nath, M., Hyslop, J., Morgan, C.A., Stott, A.W. Analysing trade-offs between animal welfare and farm economics in Scottish suckler herds using dynamic programming (In prep).

Vosough Ahmadi, B., Thomson, S., Shrestha, S., Stott, A.W. (2013). Sustainable intensification and animal welfare in cattle and sheep farming systems. UFAW International Animal Welfare Science Symposium Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 4-5th July 2013.

Vosough Ahmadi, B., Nath, M., Hyslop, J.J., Morgan, C.A. and Stott, A.W. (2011). Economic Constraints and Incentives on Welfare of Out-wintering Suckler Cows. In: Proceedings of UFAW International Symposium 2011, June 28th – 29th, 2011, Portsmouth, UK.

Vosough Ahmadi, B., Nath, M., Morgan, C.A. and Stott, A.W. (2010). Beef Cow Management in Scotland: A Sensitive Balancing Act. Knowledge Scotland Brief: http://www.knowledgescotland.org/briefings.php?id=173.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 15

(b) Have opportunities for exploiting Intellectual Property arising out of this work been identified?............................................................YES NO If YES, please give details.

(c) Has any other action been taken to initiate Knowledge Transfer?..................................YES NO If YES, please give details.

The farmer workshops provided a useful vehicle for framing some of the questions and promoting this research within farmers and related interest groups. This work has also generated articles in the local press and part of a blog on grazing issues.

Details of this on-going research programme has been fed into the information provided to farmers via the technology transfer team ‘Grassland Development Centre’ based at IBERS Aberystwyth. The field site at IBERS and SRUC has been demonstrated to visiting groups and undergraduate students. IBERS hosts visits of up to 20 groups of farmers each year, including grassland societies and abattoir producer groups. Furthermore we are exploring the possibilities of identifying an outwintering monitor farm for transmission of good practice with Eblex and HCC.

A webpage has begun to be populated on the SAC website: http://www.sac.ac.uk/research/projects/landeconomy/featured/outwintering/.Ongoing work has fed into SACs wider remit for transferring information related to out-wintering strategies.

Future work12. Please comment briefly on any new scientific opportunities which may arise from the project.

This work aligns with the growing policy agenda towards ‘Sustainable Intensification’. The linking up of economic, environmental and spatial models being conducted within this research project provides a powerful tool for exploring future intensification scenarios and quantifying the impact of the trade-off between environmental and economic benefits. A policy (2-page) will be prepared in late Summer 2013 around the area of sustainable intensification and modelling impacts. Future research in this area would be of major benefit to Defra Policy Division in indicating appropriate policies for the development of economically and environmentally sustainable livestock production systems in the UK.

Furthermore, a Dynamic Grazing platform has been established within SRUC and partners to begin to develop the spatial modelling framework here. The aim is to include

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 15

economic and environmental factors but also aspects of animal welfare and disease management within the platform to explore further tranches of research funding which will be of interest to Defra research divisions.

Furthermore, with on-going reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, there are opportunities to understand the behavioural response to these policies from an outwintering perspective, i.e. in terms of future investment, cost-saving and destocking, as well as changes to cross-compliance measures. These will help to inform uptake of future outwintering practices. Defra have a growing interest in behavioural change and our findings are highlighting how farmers perceive environmental damage and how these are traded off with economic needs and future consequences of mitigation strategies.

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 15

Declaration13. I declare that the information I have given is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name Mike Smith. Date      

Position held Head of Department

SID 4 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 15