Main authors: Linda Tendler, Thomas Beiss-Delkeskamp
FAIRWAYiS Editor: Jane Brandt
Source documents: »Oenema, O. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.1, 125 pp
»Commelin, M. et al. 2018. Review of measures to decrease pesticide pollution of drinking water sources. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.2, 79 pp
»Velthof, G. et al. 2020. Identification of most promising measures and practices. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 4.3, 72 pp

 

One of FAIRWAY's major research themes is the identification and assessment of most promising measures and practices to decrease nitrate and pesticide pollution of drinking water supplies by agriculture (see »Farming practices: review and assessment).

Data and information collected from the Lower Saxony case study was used in the research tasks as described here. Nitrate and phosphate, rather than pesticide, pollution is the main issue in this area.


Contents table
1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution
2. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures

1. Measures to decrease nitrate pollution

In »Review of measures to decrease nitrate pollution of drinking water sources we describe how FAIRWAY built on insights and results gathered in EU-wide and global projects and studies. We provide an overview and assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of measures aimed at decreasing nitrate pollution of drinking water sources. As part of the review, the Lower Saxony case study provided information about the measures that have been implemented in the local area.

Name of measure Farm-holistic fertilization planning with generic software  
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Farm-holistic planing (including economic scenarios) to better estimate the amount of fertilizer needed 
Mode of action
  • decrease of total nitrate/phosphate of nutrients applied
  • improved nutrient efficiency due to optimized plant availability of other nutrients/micronutrients
  • optimized integration of organic fertilizers
  • high adoptability by farms (holistic approach, also considers economic and logistic challenges) 
Expected effectiveness Depends on individual farm; no effect up to high effect 
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha 
Underpinning Only project reports exist, no official (scientific) publications available 
Applicability Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land) 
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees) 
Other benefits Yes, potentially various 
Disadvantages No
References  
Additional comments  
Name of measure Sampling-based (and model-based) fertilization planning 
Target Quality groundwater resources 
Description Soil and plant sampling (and modelling of water dynamics in the soil) to better estimate crop nutrients needs and timing of fertilization; e.g. soil mineral nitrogen analysis, humus analysis, analysis of temporal development of nitrate/chlorophyll contents in plant sap, ... 
Mode of action
  • increase of yield (higher nutrient export from the field)
  • decrease of total nitrate/phosphate applied
  • improved timing of fertilization 
Expected effectiveness Depends on individual farm; no effect up to high effect 
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Only project reports exist, no official (scientific) publications available 
Applicability Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land) 
Adoptability Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees) 
Other benefits Unknown 
Disadvantages No
References  
Additional comments Adoptability depends on respective crop (rotation) 
Name of measure Calculation of nutrient balances (different scenarios)
Target Quality groundwater resources
Description Calculation of nutrient balances both field-based and farm-based
Mode of action
  • decrease of total nitrate/phosphate of nutrients applied
  • identification of critical factors (such as crops, techniques, ..)
Expected effectiveness Depends on individual farm; no effect up to moderate effect
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Only project reports exist, no official (scientific) publications available
Applicability Yes (on more than 75% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability Yes (more than 75% of the addressees)
Other benefits Unknown
Disadvantages No
References  
Additional comments Farmers are legally obliged to adopt the measure
Name of measure Information events/discussions/ field days concerning relevant topics
Target Quality surface and groundwater
Description

Improved information transfer about topics dealing with efficient use of farm manure, e.g.

  • professional advice ("How much farm manure can be efficiently used by my crops?")
  • legal framework ("Which amount of farm manure am I allowed to apply legally, e.g. when considering special restrictions in water protected areas?")
  • economic considerations ("Which economic benefits can I expect using farm manure by substituting mineral fertilizers?")
  • soil fertility ("Which effect do I see on soil fertility in respect to potentially increased stocks of humus but also due to e.g. soil compaction?")
  • various effects ("Which other problems may arise when I apply farm manure, e.g. civilians complaing about odours, ...? ")
Mode of action
  • development of farm-holistic concept concerning the use of fertilizers --> decrease of nitrate/phosphate
  • substitution of mineral farm manure with organic fertilizers (and with that supporting farms in the northwest(farm manure surplus region))
  • increased yields (higher nutrient export from the field) ---> reduced amounts of nitrate/phosphate being lost to the environment
Expected effectiveness Depends on individual farm; no effect up to high effect
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Only project reports exist, no official (scientific) publications available
Applicability Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees)
Other benefits Unknown
Disadvantages  
References  
Additional comments  
Name of measure Demonstration/use of innovative techniques concerning farm manure application (while avoiding soil compaction)
Target Quality surface and groundwater
Description Improved information transfer and promoting of innovative techniques to enable efficient application of farm manure
Mode of action
  • increased nutrient efficiency (minimizing losses to the environment, e.g. less ammonia losses when applying farm manure)
  • improving/maintaining soil fertility --> increasing/maintaining yield levels --> high(er) nutrient export from the field
  • motivating farmers to participate in project
Expected effectiveness Depends on individual farm; no effect up to moderate effect
Expected cost Low: < 10 euro per ha
Underpinning Only project reports exist, no official (scientific) publications available
Applicability Partly (on 25-75% of the agricultural land)
Adoptability Partly (on 25-75% of the addressees)
Other benefits Yes, decreases greenhouse gas emissions
Disadvantages No
References  
Additional comments  

3. Effectiveness of nitrate and pesticide measures

The information about 34 different nitrate mitigation measures, implemented locally in 10 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were aggregated by type and the average/overall scores for effectivity, cost, applicability, and adoptability were assessed from the individual records and comments. See »Management practices that reduce nitrate transport - Results and discussion - Case studies.

Similarly, information about 17 different pesticide mitigation measures, implemented locally in 7 different FAIRWAY case studies, was collected and analysed. The measures were evaluated for their cost and effectiveness for reducing pollution of groundwater and surface water. See »Management practices that reduce pesticide transport - Results - Case studies

 


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References