1. Home
  2. Datasets
  3. Sheep and beef typology ...

Sheep and beef typology table of mitigation effectiveness for N and P losses with GHG co-benefits

Description

A table of sheep and beef typologies and typology linked mitigation measures that improve N and P losses to water along with their GHG emission co-benefits.

 

Date: June 2024 Version: v1

Owner: AgResearch

Contact: Tony van der Weerden (AgResearch)

Link to report / paper

Sheep+beef typology table of mitigation effectiveness for N and P losses with GHG co-benefits

Preview Image

 

Dataset attributes

Spatial extent
Spatial resolution
Temporal extent Farm system and environmental data of primary typology representing the 2019/20 and 2020/21 production years.
Temporal resolution Percentage change to predicted annual losses
Evaluation method (Validation) Expert assessment of independent dataset
Evaluation result (Numeric) N/A
Evaluation result (Categorical) N/A
Uncertainty method N/A
Uncertainty data format (Numeric) N/A
Uncertainty data format (Categorical) N/A

 

Methodology

The table of mitigation effectiveness contains information on published effectiveness of a range of mitigation measures aimed at reducing N and P losses to water for the range of sheep+beef types.
The tables also include generalised information on the impact of these mitigations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and whether they produce a co-benefit (reduction of both losses to water and GHG) or little to no co-benefit. Greenhouse gas emissions are split into methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (CO2).

Mitigation opportunities are limited in sheep+beef systems. Riparian protection, fertiliser management and land retirement are the main options for mitigating nutrient loss to water. Engineering solutions e.g. constructed wetlands have some potential in limited types. Retiring steep erodible land or wet swamp/boggy land will achieve the largest reductions for the smallest loss of production.

The mitigations exclude examples that are too variable to adequately generalise into sheep+beef types or mitigations where effectiveness is strongly dependent on farm practices rather than farm attributes. These include reducing cultivation, maintaining buffer strips, best fertility management for P; as well as reducing crop areas, use of catch crops, and best fertility management for N.

 

Fitness for purpose / limitations

This table indicates whether the dataset is suitable for different types of questions at different scales.

Note: Users should carefully consider their purpose as this dataset may not be suitable.

Operational Absolute Relative Screening/scoping
Block/farm No No No Maybe
Multi-farms(5+) No No No Maybe
Catchment No No No Maybe
National/regional Maybe Maybe Yes Yes
Caveat(s) Mitigation effectiveness is based on limited information, amalgamated information or specific investigations. These mitigations were designed to be a broad indication of potential effectiveness, typically to be used at a regional (preferable) or catchment scale. They do not replace in depth investigations for individual farms or catchments required for a more accurate assessment. Individual farm systems and farmer decisions, as well as local soil, climate and topography will mean that actual mitigations can vary wildly depending on the magnitude of change and the impact on the system.

Data and Resources