Additional slurry storage can only be a win for the environment

CSO data released in the last week shows that dairy cow numbers have reduced by 2% between December 2023 and 2024, with the total number now standing at 1,418,300.

A more startling statistic is that “other cow’’ – ie suckler beef cows – numbers fell by 6.2%to 767,800, with the total cattle numbers of the country sitting at 6,308,300, a fall of 217,700 (3.3%) in just a calendar year.

Dairy cow numbers are reducing for a number of reasons; the fall in the derogation from 250kg down to 220kg N/ha; banding of dairy cows; greater competition for land, and the often-overlooked dispersal of smaller herds with no successor.

On the beef side, high beef prices in 2024 tempted many to reduce cow numbers and ease pressure on inputs, while the successor issue is ever more present on the drystock side as well.

In 1980, cattle numbers stood at 6.908 million head, some 600,000 head, or 10% higher than our current numbers. If we think back to that period, slatted houses were only coming on to the scene, open yards with little control over soiled water and slurry were more commonplace.

When it did come to spreading slurry, there was no such things as buffer zones or using LESS equipment, but the real big thing was that there was no such thing as a closed period.

Our fertiliser use, especially the usage of P and K has changed, with 275,000t of N, 63,000t P and 150,000 tonnes of K used in 1980, compared to 310,000t of N, 28,000t of P and 88,000t of K used in 2024.

Of this, 17% of all the N used was in a protected form, while our P and K usage is nearly half what it was 44 years ago.

Closed period

Closed periods get a bad rap, but they do have their purpose.

They are typically based on soil temperature and grass growth as opposed to ground trafficability, with the idea being that even where ground is trafficable in December/early January, the low growth in grasses and plants will fail to uptake all the nutrients spread in the slurry, which will ultimately lead to leaching into groundwater.

The answer is not to spread slurry or soiled water in the open period where ground is untrafficable, as this will ultimately lead to run-off in to open watercourses. So where is the middle ground?

Slurry storage and raw sewage

If we think back to the 1980s when we had 600,000 extra cattle on farms in Ireland, and also consider the infrastructure built on Irish farms since then for slurry storage, dung pits and sheds, there are huge volumes of slurry and farmyard manure that are stored each year over the closed period and applied when growing conditions are there to utilise the nutrients in them.

How then is it that with less cattle, closed periods for slurry, buffer zones, and fenced-off drinking points, our water quality is not significantly improved?The blame can’t be laid entirely at the feet of farmers.

The EPA last year released findings that raw sewage was being released in to watercourses from 16 towns and villages across Ireland in 2023, the equivalent of 40,000 people, due to a lack of waste water treatment facilities.

Five of these areas are to be rectified this year (2025) with one of these being Arklow, responsible for close to half of the raw sewage being discharged daily.

While the figure was down from 29 areas the year previous, surely this has to be the primary impact on poor water quality in these areas, and not farmers?

Even with five of these areas being rectified, that still leaves 11 towns releasing raw sewage in to watercourses daily.

Farmers are still willing to invest in slurry storage but red tape is a barrier to them doing so. Some simple steps need to be implemented by the Department to address the problem.

1. Raising of reference costs

Reference costs have failed to rise in line with that of inflation of building costs. Even with the raise in reference costs between TAMS II and TAMS III, reference costs are generally 20% behind that of actual costs. A review was to be conducted last back end, but nothing has yet come of it. Reference costs need to be risen immediately to bring them in line with on the ground costs.

2. Relaxation of planning rules

In Budget 2023, the Government pledged to park planning permission requirement for the creation of standalone nutrient storage facilities.

Eighteen months later, we still have no confirmation as to when this will be implemented, with indications that it will be in the latter half of 2025. This also needs to be fast tracked as it is leaving farmers unable to create storage due to lack of planning permission for a number of reasons, including serial objectors.

3. Derogation for farmers lacking slurry storage

It’s mind boggling to think that those farmers who are most in need of slurry storage are locked out of TAMS due to not having sufficient storage on paper, and should the requirements be raised (which they likely will, going by recent Teagasc analysis) these farmers will fall further away from compliancy.

A two year grace period that will allow these farmers to avail of grant aid to bring themselves up to spec on slurry storage should be implemented.

Should the above be done, then we will see more slurry storage being created on farms, with the net result being slurry being spread in even more optimal growing conditions, resulting in less nutrient loss, less chemical fertiliser required, all the while reducing the negative impact that agriculture has on our water.

Surely a win-win situation.