IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v120y2013icp49-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer perception of suitable conditions for slurry application compared with decision support system recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Kerebel, A.
  • Cassidy, R.
  • Jordan, P.
  • Holden, N.M.

Abstract

The application of slurry nutrients to land can be associated with unintended losses to the environment depending on soil and weather conditions. Correct timing of slurry application, however, can increase plant nutrient uptake and reduce losses. A decision support system (DSS), which predicts optimum conditions for slurry spreading based on the Hybrid Soil Moisture Deficit (HSMD) model, was investigated for use as a policy tool. The DSS recommendations were compared to farmer perception of suitable conditions for slurry spreading for three soil drainage classes (well, moderate and poorly drained) to better understand on farm slurry management practices and to identify potential conflict with farmer opinion. Six farmers participated in a survey over two and a half years, during which they completed a daily diary, and their responses were compared to Soil Moisture Deficit (SMD) calculations and weather data recorded by on farm meteorological stations. The perception of land drainage quality differed between farmers and was related to their local knowledge and experience. It was found that the allocation of grass fields to HSMD drainage classes using a visual assessment method aligned farmer perception of drainage at the national scale. Farmer opinion corresponded to the theoretical understanding that slurry should not be applied when the soil is wetter than field capacity, i.e. when drainage can occur. While weather and soil conditions (especially trafficability) were the principal reasons given by farmers not to spread slurry, farm management practices (grazing and silage) and current Nitrates Directive policies (closed winter period for spreading) combined with limited storage capacities were obstacles to utilisation of slurry nutrients. Despite the slightly more restrictive advice of the DSS regarding the number of suitable spreading opportunities, the system has potential to address an information deficit that would help farmers to reduce nutrient losses and optimise plant nutrient uptake by improved slurry management. The DSS advice was in general agreement with the farmers and, therefore, they should not be resistant to adopting the tool for day to day management.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerebel, A. & Cassidy, R. & Jordan, P. & Holden, N.M., 2013. "Farmer perception of suitable conditions for slurry application compared with decision support system recommendations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 49-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:120:y:2013:i:c:p:49-60
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.05.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X13000681
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.05.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dave S. Reay & Eric A. Davidson & Keith A. Smith & Pete Smith & Jerry M. Melillo & Frank Dentener & Paul J. Crutzen, 2012. "Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 410-416, June.
    2. Cox, P. G., 1996. "Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 52(2-3), pages 355-381.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Micha, Evgenia & Roberts, William & O’ Sullivan, Lilian & O’ Connell, Kay & Daly, Karen, 2020. "Examining the policy-practice gap: The divergence between regulation and reality in organic fertiliser allocation in pasture based systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bergez, J. -E. & Garcia, F. & Lapasse, L., 2004. "A hierarchical partitioning method for optimizing irrigation strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 235-253, June.
    2. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    3. Lili Guo & Yuting Song & Mengqian Tang & Jinyang Tang & Bright Senyo Dogbe & Mengying Su & Houjian Li, 2022. "Assessing the Relationship among Land Transfer, Fertilizer Usage, and PM 2.5 Pollution: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Felizitas Winkhart & Thomas Mösl & Harald Schmid & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen, 2022. "Effects of Organic Maize Cropping Systems on Nitrogen Balances and Nitrous Oxide Emissions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-30, June.
    5. Stafford, William & Birch, Catherine & Etter, Hannes & Blanchard, Ryan & Mudavanhu, Shepherd & Angelstam, Per & Blignaut, James & Ferreira, Louwrens & Marais, Christo, 2017. "The economics of landscape restoration: Benefits of controlling bush encroachment and invasive plant species in South Africa and Namibia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 193-202.
    6. Guofeng Wang & Pu Liu & Jinmiao Hu & Fan Zhang, 2022. "Agriculture-Induced N 2 O Emissions and Reduction Strategies in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, September.
    7. Lescourret, F. & Blecher, N. & Habib, R. & Chadoeuf, J. & Agostini, D. & Pailly, O. & Vaissiere, B. & Poggi, I., 1999. "Development of a simulation model for studying kiwi fruit orchard management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 215-239, February.
    8. Meinke, H. & Baethgen, W. E. & Carberry, P. S. & Donatelli, M. & Hammer, G. L. & Selvaraju, R. & Stockle, C. O., 2001. "Increasing profits and reducing risks in crop production using participatory systems simulation approaches," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 70(2-3), pages 493-513.
    9. Anik, Asif Reza & Eory, Vera & Begho, Toritseju & Rahman, Md. Mizanur, 2023. "Determinants of nitrogen use efficiency and gaseous emissions assessed from farm survey: A case of wheat in Bangladesh," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    10. Walker, Daniel H., 2002. "Decision support, learning and rural resource management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 113-127, July.
    11. Welch, S. M. & Jones, J. W. & Brennan, M. W. & Reeder, G. & Jacobson, B. M., 2002. "PCYield: model-based decision support for soybean production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 79-98, October.
    12. Francesco N. Tubiello & Josef Schmidhuber, 2014. "Emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture and their mitigation," Chapters, in: Raghbendra Jha & Raghav Gaiha & Anil B. Deolalikar (ed.), Handbook on Food, chapter 16, pages 422-442, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Loevinsohn, Michael E. & Berdegue, Julio A. & Guijt, Irene, 2002. "Deepening the basis of rural resource management: learning processes and decision support," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 3-22, July.
    14. Martin, G. & Duru, M. & Schellberg, J. & Ewert, F., 2012. "Simulations of plant productivity are affected by modelling approaches of farm management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 25-34.
    15. Heiko Paeth & Daniel Schönbein & Luzia Keupp & Daniel Abel & Freddy Bangelesa & Miriam Baumann & Christian Büdel & Christian Hartmann & Christof Kneisel & Konstantin Kobs & Julian Krause & Martin Krec, 2023. "Climate change information tailored to the agricultural sector in Central Europe, exemplified on the region of Lower Franconia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-24, October.
    16. Mario Herrero & Benjamin Henderson & Petr Havlík & Philip K. Thornton & Richard T. Conant & Pete Smith & Stefan Wirsenius & Alexander N. Hristov & Pierre Gerber & Margaret Gill & Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, 2016. "Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 452-461, May.
    17. Yusuf Nadi Karatay & Andreas Meyer-Aurich, 2018. "A Model Approach for Yield-Zone-Specific Cost Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by Nitrogen Fertilizer Reduction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Cain, J. D. & Jinapala, K. & Makin, I. W. & Somaratna, P. G. & Ariyaratna, B. R. & Perera, L. R., 2003. "Participatory decision support for agricultural management. A case study from Sri Lanka," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-482, May.
    19. Sterk, B. & van Ittersum, M.K. & Leeuwis, C. & Rossing, W.A.H. & van Keulen, H. & van de Ven, G.W.J., 2006. "Finding niches for whole-farm design models - contradictio in terminis?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 211-228, February.
    20. Ahmmed Md Motasim & Abd Wahid Samsuri & Arina Shairah Abdul Sukor & Amin Mohd Adibah, 2021. "Gaseous Nitrogen Losses from Tropical Soils with Liquid or Granular Urea Fertilizer Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:120:y:2013:i:c:p:49-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.