The Department of Agriculture plans to grant-aid trailing shoes and exclude dribble bars in the first round of the On-Farm Capital Investment Scheme, which replaces the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme, the Irish Farmers Journal understands.
It is understood that the preference for a trailing shoe is underpinned in particular by lower ammonia emissions. This news comes as the sector is under sustained pressure to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
No official announcement has yet been made on what will or won’t qualify under the updated low emission slurry spreading (LESS) listing. However, the proposed move has left many farmers throughout the country feeling very disgruntled.
Where applicable, the trailing shoe has increased advantages over a dribble bar.
For example, the trailing coulter (shoe) is used to separate the sward canopy before applying slurry, which helps reduce leaf contamination – however, a more competent operator is required in addition to more horsepower.
However, the reality is that many parts of the country are not suitable for such equipment to function due to the topography- whether it be rushes, hills, hollows or stones
etc.
Paul O’Brien, chair IFA
environmental and rural
affairs committee
“The dribble bar technology makes LESS available to a lot more parts of the country where soil conditions or slopes are more difficult – surely that should be the objective with TAMS to make cost effective technology available to farmers that want to use nutrients better.”
Paul Quinn, Mastek
“As a manufacturer of LESS systems, we are set up to manufacture all methods, from dribble bars right through to injection systems. Eight years ago, I visited eight farms in Finland when farmers were required to move to trailing shoes due to new Finish legislation. The conditions on many of these farms were not right for such machines – they pulled up stones, broke the springs, damaged shoes etc. To avoid such problems, I watched farmers operating the shoes raised 300mm above the ground, versus a dribble bar which runs at 40-50mm above the ground –thus the shoes were having the opposite effect on emissions. I’m afraid this will be the same story in many parts of Ireland if this becomes the situation here. In Germany, dribble bars are still grant-aided but only for farmers with grassland which makes sense. Meanwhile, German farmers have to use a trailing shoe on open soil (stubble).
“We have sold over 3,500 dribble bars, and I often see that smaller farmers on marginal land are just about making these systems work, from a financial and weight/tractor requirement perspective. In fact, at the Cavan show last week, I spoke to a customer who complained that the lay flat hose on our machines was not leaving a straight line in the field because of the rushes. After speaking to him I realised that a trailing shoe would have no chance of working on his farm and the same goes for stoney ground or those who work on hills”.
“We have found that trailing shoes are 50% heavier over like for like width dribble bars, they are 35% more expensive to buy and will cost 20% more each year on running costs".
“We have found that trailing shoes are 50% heavier over like for like width dribble bars, they are 35% more expensive to buy and will cost 20% more each year on running costs. In terms of retrofitting, there are several issues. Brackets need to be fabricated to attach the trailing shoes to the tanker’s chassis, and attached via a top link. Meanwhile, with the dribble bars, it’s just a matter of taking off the tanker’s back door and bolting it straight on. Smaller tankers won’t be balanced with the additional weight hanging off the back. The trailing shoe will lift the drawbar on the tanker, as they don’t sit as close to the back of the tank as dribble bars do.”
The graph above shows research carried out by Westphalian University of Applied Sciences in Germany.
The university compared three different slurry application methods relative to the splash plate method in terms of the loss of ammonia (NH3) into the atmosphere within the first two hours after application.
It’s evident that there are six percentage points between the dribble bar and trailing shoe.
The research shows there is a marginal advantage in using a trailing shoe over a dribble bar. There is no doubting that – but it comes at an increased cost, just shy of €10,500 in a retrofit solution of a 7.5m applicator, which is now at the smaller end of the market.
TAMS funding makes low-emission slurry application through dribble bars available to many in difficult terrain – it would be a shame to jeopardise that. In a time where farmers are struggling to keep up with inflation and rising costs, is it the time to be adding more cost?
The Department of Agriculture plans to grant-aid trailing shoes and exclude dribble bars in the first round of the On-Farm Capital Investment Scheme, which replaces the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme, the Irish Farmers Journal understands.
It is understood that the preference for a trailing shoe is underpinned in particular by lower ammonia emissions. This news comes as the sector is under sustained pressure to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
No official announcement has yet been made on what will or won’t qualify under the updated low emission slurry spreading (LESS) listing. However, the proposed move has left many farmers throughout the country feeling very disgruntled.
Where applicable, the trailing shoe has increased advantages over a dribble bar.
For example, the trailing coulter (shoe) is used to separate the sward canopy before applying slurry, which helps reduce leaf contamination – however, a more competent operator is required in addition to more horsepower.
However, the reality is that many parts of the country are not suitable for such equipment to function due to the topography- whether it be rushes, hills, hollows or stones
etc.
Paul O’Brien, chair IFA
environmental and rural
affairs committee
“The dribble bar technology makes LESS available to a lot more parts of the country where soil conditions or slopes are more difficult – surely that should be the objective with TAMS to make cost effective technology available to farmers that want to use nutrients better.”
Paul Quinn, Mastek
“As a manufacturer of LESS systems, we are set up to manufacture all methods, from dribble bars right through to injection systems. Eight years ago, I visited eight farms in Finland when farmers were required to move to trailing shoes due to new Finish legislation. The conditions on many of these farms were not right for such machines – they pulled up stones, broke the springs, damaged shoes etc. To avoid such problems, I watched farmers operating the shoes raised 300mm above the ground, versus a dribble bar which runs at 40-50mm above the ground –thus the shoes were having the opposite effect on emissions. I’m afraid this will be the same story in many parts of Ireland if this becomes the situation here. In Germany, dribble bars are still grant-aided but only for farmers with grassland which makes sense. Meanwhile, German farmers have to use a trailing shoe on open soil (stubble).
“We have sold over 3,500 dribble bars, and I often see that smaller farmers on marginal land are just about making these systems work, from a financial and weight/tractor requirement perspective. In fact, at the Cavan show last week, I spoke to a customer who complained that the lay flat hose on our machines was not leaving a straight line in the field because of the rushes. After speaking to him I realised that a trailing shoe would have no chance of working on his farm and the same goes for stoney ground or those who work on hills”.
“We have found that trailing shoes are 50% heavier over like for like width dribble bars, they are 35% more expensive to buy and will cost 20% more each year on running costs".
“We have found that trailing shoes are 50% heavier over like for like width dribble bars, they are 35% more expensive to buy and will cost 20% more each year on running costs. In terms of retrofitting, there are several issues. Brackets need to be fabricated to attach the trailing shoes to the tanker’s chassis, and attached via a top link. Meanwhile, with the dribble bars, it’s just a matter of taking off the tanker’s back door and bolting it straight on. Smaller tankers won’t be balanced with the additional weight hanging off the back. The trailing shoe will lift the drawbar on the tanker, as they don’t sit as close to the back of the tank as dribble bars do.”
The graph above shows research carried out by Westphalian University of Applied Sciences in Germany.
The university compared three different slurry application methods relative to the splash plate method in terms of the loss of ammonia (NH3) into the atmosphere within the first two hours after application.
It’s evident that there are six percentage points between the dribble bar and trailing shoe.
The research shows there is a marginal advantage in using a trailing shoe over a dribble bar. There is no doubting that – but it comes at an increased cost, just shy of €10,500 in a retrofit solution of a 7.5m applicator, which is now at the smaller end of the market.
TAMS funding makes low-emission slurry application through dribble bars available to many in difficult terrain – it would be a shame to jeopardise that. In a time where farmers are struggling to keep up with inflation and rising costs, is it the time to be adding more cost?
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: