Addendum to MGM Overview report: OVERSEER version change 6.2 to 6.2.1

Transcription

1 Addendum to MGM Overview report: OVERSEER version change 6.2 to Introduction This addendum is to document to impact of the OVERSEER version change from 6.2 to in the Farm Portal in preparation for the notification of Plan Change 5 (proposed change to the Land and Water Regional Plan) by Canterbury Regional Council. The addendum only reports the changes to the GMP modelling proxies, changes to estimated N losses and corrections or omissions in the MGM Overview report. Changes to estimated P losses are not reported here as MGM P loss estimates are not reported in the Farm Portal or referred to in the notified plan change. 2. Methodology for testing impact of OVERSEER version change In brief, the methodology for updating the MGM outputs to version was: 1. Checked individual GMP test files under the new version. Updates to GMPs and test files made to allow new version to run 2. Ran farm survey files and Fonterra files in version 6.2 and with a complete breakdown of impact of all individual and combined GMPs for N and P 3. Analysed the impact of each GMP and of all the GMPs to check that the version change was not changing the intent of the GMP modelling proxy. 4. Ran all base files under the new version to create the updated catchment matrix 5. Checked the output of the catchment matrix and made adjustments to base files or business rules where required 6. Incorporated the new catchment matrix into the Farm Portal Database 3. Changes that were made to the catchment matrix base files Sheep, beef and deer A re run of all sheep, beef and deer files in OVERSEER version resulted in some files not being able to run, returning error messages that Metabolisable Energy (ME, i.e. feed) supplied for the animals on the farm is exceeding animal requirements as estimated by OVERSEER. This error is the same as the one noted in Section on page 103 of the Overview report (Robson et al., 2015). The error affected some of the sheep, beef and deer catchment matrix base farm types, mostly those with higher proportions of forage crops. A constant multiplier 1 was applied to reduce the modelled forage crop yields, with the value chosen to create the least reduction possible yet have all the main combinations of farms solve. This multiplier was 0.49 for spray irrigated blocks and 0.42 for border dyke blocks. Using OVERSEER this multiplier resulted in some farms failing to solve. Further analysis showed that the farms that wouldn t solve were confined to climate category 10. In 1 The multipliers and reduction in imported supplements can be removed in future versions when the cropallocation error is resolved. 1

2 the climate category 10 farm systems, the multiplier was changed to 0.34 for all irrigation systems and imported supplements were reduced by 10 % 1. Cropping No changes were made to the cropping base files. Dairy: An error was detected in the dairy base files: the milk production of wintering on pasture farms was set at the level of the SLMM system, instead of varying levels for different farm systems (supplement and milk production classes). This error has been corrected. Another error was detected in the business rules to extrapolate the farm systems across soils and climates for the ratios to calculate milk production and stocking rate for border dyke irrigated systems. This also has been corrected. A re run of all dairy files in OVERSEER version resulted in many files of wintering on systems not being able to run, returning error messages that the ME provided by crops and supplements were exceeding animal requirements as estimated by OVERSEER. This error does not occur for these same systems when run in OVERSEER version 6.2. The error was solved by changing all wintering on base files: supplements made on farm or imported on farm are now being fed to the dairy enterprise, without allocating the feed to any specific paddocks or specific months. Not specifying allocation is consistent with the approach taken for sheep, beef and deer farm systems in the Catchment Matrix. No further errors were returned after this change was made. 4. Changes that were made to the GMP modelling proxies GMP17: Pastoral Fertiliser P There were two changes that affected the calculation of the GMP modelling proxy for pastoral P fertiliser. The first was that lucerne blocks were inadvertently omitted from the P fertiliser calculation and that omission was rectified in the The second change was to correct an unintended interaction between the P and N fertiliser calculations whereby the removal of any pre GMP N fertiliser applications reduced Overseer s calculation of the maintenance P requirement and that flowed through to the fertiliser calculation. The reason for the change in the maintenance P calculation was not expected and was not tested for. This has been corrected in the version of the matrix by updating the nutrient budget report after the GMP N fertiliser has been applied and using an updated value for the maintenance P as the GMP P fertiliser. This had no effect on the N fertiliser or N lost to water. GMP06: CroppingFertiliser Fertiliser applications to crops by the cropping fertiliser GMP modelling proxy are expected to differ slightly between OVERSEER versions as they are based on the N availability in the OVERSEER background N model. The amounts of fertiliser applied and timing were sensible and comparable to version 6.2 when manually checked across the GMP test files and survey farms. However, one error 2

3 was detected in the code for the modelling proxy whereby extra months of effluent were being included in the overall N availability for crops with effluent applied. This was resulting in a slightly smaller total N fertiliser amount applied than expected. The error was corrected, tested and new GMP test files created. GMP19: AllIrrigationPAW No changes were made to the AllIrrigationPAW GMP modelling proxy. However, the OVERSEER files created for automated testing of this GMP in the portal were updated to capture the change in prior land use crops introduced in OVERSEER version Prior land uses that were defined as vegetable in OVERSEER version 6.2 changed to a generic crop in version This resolved a discrepancy in OVERSEER where prior land use vegetable crops were modelled with no standing biomass N (as detailed in Hume et al. 2015); accordingly the Crop Rotation Model defined these periods as fallow and no irrigation was applied to these crops. In version 6.2.1, modelling of a generic crop prior land use gives monthly plant N uptake and significant standing biomass N, thus a crop is detected in the Crop Rotation Model and appropriate irrigation applied. 5. Other changes Sheep, beef and deer survey farm files Several farm survey files originally created in OVERSEER version failed to complete in OVERSEER 6.2 or due to the forage crop error in OVERSEER mentioned before (ME provided by forage crops and supplements exceeding estimated animal requirements). In the interests of making as many files available as possible for analysis, this error was overcome by adding in a separate mob of steers or stags to consume forage in the affected months 2. The effect of this additional mob will be to increase stock numbers but as they were only added in the months in which the OVERSEER error identified as problematic they are unlikely to have a significant effect on the overall nutrient losses for the farm. Eight of the 43 files were affected. Once these changes were made BLNZ23 failed in both OVERSEER 6.2 and 6.2.1, BLNZ07 failed in OVERSEER 6.2 and DINZ11 failed in OVERSEER No further changes were made. An additional change was made to the order of the application of GMPs in the Farm Portal. This did not affect the N losses generated by the Farm Portal 3. 2 When the OVERSEER error is resolved, this additional mob can be removed and the analysis rerun. 3 P losses from some pastoral catchment matrix farm files were impacted. The updated P results for the catchment matrix have been supplied to Canterbury Regional Council. 3

4 6. Impact of OVERSEER version change on the catchment matrix Impact of version change on modelled N loss to water in the sheep, beef and deer catchment matrix Figure 1 shows the comparison of modelled annual N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for sheep, beef and deer catchment matrix base farm systems across soils and climates. The comparison includes any changes that were made to the catchment matrix base farm files to allow them to run in the new version described in Section 3. The version change (and changes to the catchment matrix base farm files) did not have a significant impact on the results of the catchment matrix. 4

5 Figure 1 Comparison of modelled N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for sheep, beef and deer catchment matrix base farm systems 5

6 Impact of OVERSEER version change on modelled N loss to water in the cropping catchment matrix Figure 2 shows the comparison of modelled annual N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for cropping catchment matrix base farm systems across soils and climates. There were no changes made to the base files. This comparison showed that generally the losses under OVERSEER version estimated slightly higher for the cropping catchment matrix farm systems than version 6.2 with dryland systems showing slightly more difference than spray irrigated systems. The intensive vegetable base farm system showed the greatest disparity between versions and systems involving forages/fodder show more disparity than systems based around arable crops. There are two noticeable lines of data below the 1:1 line, i.e. data that gives lower N loss values in version versus version 6.2 (the opposite from the trend of rest of data). When the catchment matrix is plotted out by soil and climate it clearly shows that the differences between estimated N losses were largely in the organic and PdL soil groups where these soils occurred 4 (Figure 3). Changes in OVERSEER version seem to have been made to the modelling of these soils, giving lower N losses particularly for the organic soils with high PAW. This is in contrast to the comments made in the Overview Report where organic soils were suggested to be losing high amounts of N due to high rates of organic matter mineralisation from cultivation. As the fertiliser N proxy is responsive, if the modelled availability of mineralised N in this soil group has now decreased then it is likely that the N fertiliser requirements have also changed to accommodate for this change. I t is shown in Table 48 of the Overview report (Robson et al., 2015) that not all combinations of land use, soil and climate occur and therefore not all combinations have been modelled. 6

7 Figure 2 Comparison of modelled N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for cropping catchment matrix base farm systems by rotation type 7

8 Figure 3 Comparison of modelled N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for cropping catchment matrix base farm systems by soil and climate category 8

9 Impact of OVERSEER version change on modelled N loss to water in the dairy catchment matrix Figure 4 shows the comparison of modelled annual N losses predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for dairy catchment matrix base farm systems across soil and climate. The comparison include the impact of the corrected errors and changes made to the catchment matrix base farm files described in Section 3. The correction of the error in the dairy base files where the milk production of wintering on pasture farms was set at one level instead of varying levels for different farm systems, resulted in an increase in N loss where milk production was higher than for SLMM and a reduction in N loss to water where milk production was lower than for SLMM. This is because the N fertiliser modelling proxy results in an adjustment of fertiliser N input (less fertiliser when milk production was lower and vice versa), and OVERSEER assumes more pasture N intake and therefore more urinary N excretion and N loss to water when production increases and all other parameters stay the same. The correction of the error in the business rules for border dyke irrigated systems resulted in an 8% increase in milksolids production, stocking rate for all border dyke irrigated systems, the size of the kale block area in border dyke irrigated wintering on kale systems, and the size of the wintering block area and amount of supplements made in border dyke irrigated wintering on pasture systems. Details of the corrected farm systems are reported in Pinxterhuis et al. (2015). The work around 5 for the fodder crop issue did not lead to significant changes in N loss to water from wintering on kale systems, but N loss to water from wintering on pasture systems was reduced. Not specifying the allocation of supplements used in winter means that OVERSEER allocates them to all blocks and all months, not just the wintering block in the wintering months. Since the amount of supplements used for wintering on pasture is much higher than for wintering on kale (yield of kale is much higher than the pasture cover available for winter grazing), this effect is negligible for wintering on kale systems, but can amount to a considerable difference in N loss for wintering on pasture systems. For example for the highest producing system, SHMH, pivot irrigated and on the light soil and climate cluster C03, the difference between supplement allocated to wintering and supplement allocation not being specified was 91 kg N/ha and 89 kg N/ha, respectively, for wintering on kale, and 62 and 54 kg N/ha, respectively, for wintering on pasture (OVERSEER 6.2). Since the changes to some of the dairy catchment matrix base farm files were significant the updated farm files were re run in 6.2 as well as to compare the impact of version change alone (Figure 7). The results are generally very well aligned, although for some systems the estimates increase and for others it decreases. 5 As the practice of feeding supplements will continue when wintering dairy cows, it will need to be entered in OVERSEER files (unless the farm is arable based and modelled with non farm animals as OVERSEER does not allow supplement to be fed). Several work around approaches are in use when specifying where and when supplements are being fed doesn t work. Any work around may influence the estimates of nutrient loss to water. 9

10 Figure 4 Comparison of modelled N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for dairy catchment matrix base farm systems, 10

11 Figure 5 Comparison of modelled N loss to water predicted by OVERSEER version 6.2 against version for revised dairy base farm systems 11

12 7. Impact of OVERSEER version change on survey farm and Fonterra farm file losses Figure 6 shows the impact of the OVERSEER version change on N losses to water from the original farm survey or Fonterra files either at a farm or a rotation scale. For all farms and rotations there is a good correlation between losses predicted by the two versions. There is most variability in the cropping survey farms and rotations. Figure 6 Relationship between N losses to water from current survey farms and rotations and Fonterra farm files when data is modelled using OVERSEER version 6.2, and version 6.2.1, note different scales used to best fit data 12

13 Table 1 shows that on average, applying GMP modelling proxies for industry agreed GMP to the survey and Fonterra files reduced modelled N losses for all land uses in comparison with losses from their current activities for OVERSEER version The reductions in means ranged from 8% to 25% and the reduction in medians ranged from 7% to 26%. The reductions are generally similar to those calculated using OVERSEER version 6.2. The only notable difference is in the median reduction for cropping. Table 1: Mean and median modelled N losses for all farm survey and Fonterra files at current practice and with GMP modelling proxies for industry agreed GMP, the 25 th and 75 th percentiles are shown in parentheses using OVERSEER version and the original difference between current and GMP using OVERSEER version 6.2 Land use Cropping Beef, sheep and deer Dairy Survey / current (version 6.2.1) GMP (version 6.2.1) % change (version 6.2.1) Mean Median (Q1:Q3) 24.0 (5 41) 20.0 (7 33) Mean Median(Q 1:Q3) 15.0 (11 21) 14.0 (10 20) 7 7 Mean Median(Q 1:Q3) 53.0 (27 72) 39.2 (18 53) Original % change (version 6.2) Figure 7 shows the impact of applying GMPs for each of the survey and Fonterra files under OVERSEER version 6.2 and expressed in terms of kg/ha/yr change. Everything below 0 is where there is a reduction in N loss to water from current to GMP and everything above 0 is where there is an increase in N loss to water from current to GMP. There is generally good agreement in the impact of GMP across versions (i.e. the blue and orange lines). In one cropping file (80) the relationship between current and GMP was reversed. The main reason for this was the change in the treatment of the pre crop that has been resolved in the new OVERSEER version as noted above in Section 4. 13

14 Figure 7 Difference between current and GMP in N loss to water on survey and Fonterra farm files when data is modelled using OVERSEER version 6.2, and version 6.2.1, farm survey no.s 1 40 are sheep, beef and deer farms, are Fonterra farms and are cropping rotations. 14

15 8. GMPs and Flags In the application of GMP to an existing OVERSEER farm file through the Farm Portal the MGM modelling proxies were applied. Some preliminary checks are made by the Farm Portal on the uploaded OVERSEER file and in some cases a flag is raised within the Farm Portal. Table 40 in the Overview report (Robson et al., 2015) gave a list of the GMP modelling proxies and associated flags relevant to modelling GMP, however it did not list all of the flags used in the Farm Portal. For completeness, all modelling proxies and flags are listed here and where further information can be found. Table 2: List of GMP and Flag codes and location of where further information can be found, note GMP 7 and 8 do not exist GMP code or flag Topic Technical report or appendix containing analysis GMP 01 Irrigation (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 02 Compaction (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 03 Fallow (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 04 Silage (Pinxterhuis et al., 2015) (DairyNZ) GMP 05 Stock access (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 06 Crop fertiliser N and P (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 09 Pastoral fertiliser P (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 10 Dairy effluent (Pinxterhuis et al., 2015) (DairyNZ) GMP 11 Dairy effluent (Pinxterhuis et al., 2015) (DairyNZ) GMP 12 Pastoral fertiliser P (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 13 Dairy effluent (Pinxterhuis et al., 2015) (DairyNZ) GMP 14 Deer on block (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 15 Pastoral cultivation (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 16 Pastoral cultivation (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 17 Pastoral fertiliser N (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 18 Filter strips (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 19 Irrigation (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) GMP 20 Pugging (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) GMP 21 Pastoral fertiliser P (Snow et al., 2016) (AgResearch) FLAG 01 Crop cultivation (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) FLAG 02 Block missing climate detail Appendix 1 FLAG 03 Block missing soil detail Appendix 2 FLAG 04 Irrigation (border dyke or flood) (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) FLAG 05 Dairy effluent (Pinxterhuis et al., 2015) (DairyNZ) FLAG 06 Compaction and artificial drainage Appendix 3 FLAG 07 Pastoral supplement dry weight Appendix 4 FLAG 08 Unknown soil name Appendix 5 FLAG 09 FLAG 10 Irrigation water nutrient concentrations Crop yield exceptionally high or low FLAG 11 Unrealistic pasture growth Appendix 6 (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) (Hume et al., 2015) (Plant & Food Research) 15

16 9. Update to references in Overview report HUME, E., BROWN, H., SINTON, S. & MEENKEN, E Arable and horticultural crop modelling for the Matrix of Good Management a technical summary. A Plant & Food Research report. SPTS No PINXTERHUIS, I., KUHN SHERLOCK, B. & DENNIS, S Matrix of Good Management Estimating nutrient loss of Canterbury dairy farm systems operating at Good Management Practice. DairyNZ, Lincoln. ROBSON, M. C., BROWN, H. E., HUME, E., LILBURNE, L., MCAULIFFE, R., PINXTERHUIS, I. J. B., SNOW, V. O., WILLIAMS, R. H., B+LNZ., DEVELOPMENTMATTERS., DINZ., ECAN., HORTNZ. & NZPORK Overview Report Canterbury Matrix of Good Management Project. Report no. R15/104 SNOW, V., MCAULIFFE, R., TAYLOR, A., ROBSON, M. & DEVANTIER, B Sheep, Beef and Deer modelling for the Matrix of Good Management a technical summary. AgResearch Internal Report. 10. Errata in Overview report Table 36 (Page 71) the border dyke farms were irrigated only on the flat blocks. Table 41 (page ) the modelling proxy Land Use Capability class 8 and 7e land treated as retired has not been applied in the Farm Portal. This was associated with the narrative GMP Retire all Land Use Capability Class 8 and either retire, or actively manage, all Class 7e to ensure intensive soil conservation measures and practices are in place and Manage farming operations to minimise direct and indirect losses of sediment and nutrients to water, and maintain or enhance soil structure where agronomically appropriate Table 41 (page 84 87) the Modelling proxy No winter forage crop break feeding on artificially drained soils associated with the narrative GMP Select appropriate wintering paddocks recognising and mitigating possible nutrient and sediment loss from critical source areas has been applied as a flag in the Farm Portal. No change to the uploaded OVERSEER file XML is applied. Table 41 (page 84 87) the modelling proxy for effluent should read no winter application of effluent (May, June, July). 16

17 11. Appendices Appendix 1 FLAG 02 Missing climate data FLAG02 BlockMissingClimateDetail is a check for where a block is missing the required climate details when a file is uploaded to the Farm Portal. When uploading an OVERSEER file, the file will be rejected if it does not contain climate details, or the details are incorrect, for each block specified in the OVERSEER file. Default PET and temperature are not valid. Users are requested to revise climate input in OVERSEER and use actual instead of default settings. These can be sourced from the OVERSEER climate tool or using own information. The climate data must have the following values: Mean annual rainfall Mean annual temperature use of default value is not valid Annual PET "use default PET" is not valid. 17

18 Appendix 2 FLAG 03 Missing soil data FLAG03 BlockMissingSoilDetail is a check for the required soil moisture on a block when a file is uploaded to the Farm Portal. When uploading an OVERSEER file, the uploaded OVERSEER file will be rejected if it does not contain specific soil moisture information for each block. It is mandatory to use the soil moisture values method for soil description in OVERSEER. Users are requested to revise the soil description in OVERSEER using the soil moisture values method based on the Landcare Research S map factsheets. The soil description is a key driver of soil nutrient losses, particularly nutrient leaching due to the impact of the Profile Available Water (PAW). 18

19 Appendix 3 FLAG 07 Pastoral compaction and artificial drainage proxy 12. The Narrative GMP and Introduction to the Proxy The relevant narrative GMPs are: Cultivation and soil structure Our intent: To minimise direct and indirect losses of sediment and nutrients to water without being prescriptive about cultivation or soil management techniques used, as there are many agronomic considerations to take into account on a paddock-by-paddock and season-by-season basis. GMP: Manage farming operations to minimise direct and indirect losses of sediment and nutrients to water, and maintain or enhance soil structure, where agronomically appropriate. Intensive grazing Our intent: Minimise risk of contaminant loss to waterbodies, and maintain soil structure and quality. GMP: Select appropriate paddocks for intensive grazing, recognising and mitigating possible nutrient and sediment loss from critical source areas. The agreed GMP proxy for this is to ensure that all pastoral blocks have the Is compacted option unchecked (covered by GMP 02 in Snow et al., 2016). In addition, if a block has artificial drainage and there is a winter grazed forage crop a flag should be raised. Implementation and testing of the Proxy 1) A flag should be raised if the block type is pastoral, DrainageMethod!= None and PastureBlockType="Fodder crop/fallow area rotates through this block" when the fodder crop is grazed in winter. See below for details of these attributes. Drainage Method: <SoilDrainage ProfileDrainageClass="Well" WaterTablePresent="false" HydrophobicCondition="Use default" DrainageMethod="None" PropDrained="0" PugOccurence="Occasional" DepthToDrain="" DrainSpace="0" ArtificialWetlandArea="0" ArtificialWetlandCondition="" /> Pasture Block Type: <Block xmlns:q3="overseer.org.nz" xsi:type="q3:pastoralblocktype" ID=" " 19

20 Name="ForageCrop_Comp_NoStrip_AccessOn" Area_ha="1000" DistanceFromCoast_km="60" RelativeProductivity="1" Topography="Easy hill" PastureBlockType="Fodder crop/fallow area rotates through this block" PastureCultivated="false"> Grazed in situ during winter: If the crop is grazed in situ between the months of May to July then this meets the criteria to raise a flag (provided the other criteria are also met). <CropDetailMonth Month="June" ID=" " ManagementOption="Defoliation"> <CropDefoliationGrazing AnimalSource="Integrated with pastoral blocks" AnimalType="" HoursCropGrazed="0" DefoliationMethod="Grazed in situ" DefoliationFate="" FinalHarvest="false" StoredPriorFeeding="false" AdditionalDefoliations="0"> The test input file for this proxy is Ovr FAR42 Artificial Drainage Input.xml and the output file is FAR42 Pastoral Compaction and Artificial Drainage Output.xml. These files contains one pastoral block, Pastoral 1 and a fodder crop block, Fodder Crop 1. The Pastoral block has Is Compacted set to true and this should be changed by the GMP tool to be false. Pastoral 1 has artificial drainage and winter grazing of the forage crop so should raise a flag. The Apply Individual GMP tool was used to apply this GMP rule to the test files and commercial test farms. 20

21 Appendix 4 FLAG 07 Pastoral supplement dry weight There is no GMP or associated proxy for this issue. This flag is implemented due to technical constraints in analysing an OVERSEER file. Flag Background OVERSEER caters for a variety of methods to enter imported supplement quantity, such as green weight, volume of material, bale size, number of cuts, etc., values for which vary by type of supplement. The method by which OVERSEER calculates the dry matter content from these values is complicated and any attempt to replicate the calculation of these values may be error prone. It is therefore a technical requirement that all OVERSEER files be uploaded to the Portal using only dry weights for imported supplements. In the event that this flag is raised, the submitter should be provided a link to the relevant documentation on converting supplement quantity to a dry weight equivalent using the OVERSEER interface (see, end user documentation, below). End user documentation The following information forms the basis of the end user documentation on converting quantities of supplements to their dry weight equivalent: Converting Imported Supplement Quantities to Dry Weight Equivalents Quantities of supplements imported must be specified in dry weight quantities prior to uploading your OVERSEER file into the Portal. The following screen shots demonstrate how you can convert from other methods of specifying quantity to dry weight. In the first screen shot the quantity of supplements imported is entered as volume of material, highlighted in orange (12 m 3 ). The dry weight equivalent of this 12 m 3 is shown at the top of the section for that supplement, highlighted in purple (2 tonnes). To change to dry weight select the Enter actual weight option, tick the Weight on dry weight basis box and enter the dry weight shown in the screen shot above. The result is shown in the following screen shot. 21

22 Implementation and testing of the flag The OVERSEER file should be examined to check that imported supplements are specified on a dry mater basis and if not raise a flag. The location of this tag is Resources/ListOfSupplements The IsDryWeight value for each supplement tag therein should be checked to confirm IsDryWeight is set to true (shown in bold below). If this is not set to true this flag should be raised. <Supplement ID=" " Name="Baleage" StorageCondition="No storage" CategoryGeneralType="Hay/Silage" Category="Silage" Weight_t="0" IsDryWeight="false" SupN="1.6" SupP="0.3" SupK="2" SupS="0.23" SupCa="0.5" SupMg="0.17" SupNa="0.14" SupCl="0.4" SupDM="35" SupME="10" SupDigest="68" EstimationMethod="Estimate weight from volume of material" Wilted="" SilageStack="false" Wrapped="false" StackContained="false" Volume_cubicmetres="12" BaleHeight_cm="0" BaleWidth_cm="0" BaleDepth_cm="0" NumberOfBales="0" BaleEquivalents="0" NumberCuts="0" NumberCutsAutumn="0" /> The test input files for this flag are FAR 120 (FLAG07) PastoralSupplementDryWeight Flag.xml and FAR 120 (FLAG07) PastoralSupplementDryWeight NoFlag.xml. There is no output file. The first of these files contains an imported supplement quantity specified in volume and should raise this flag. The second is specified in dry weight and should not raise this flag. The test for individual flags tool was used to check this flag was raised correctly on the test files. The commercial test farms already had quantities converted to dry weights and none of these raised the flag. 22

23 Appendix 5 FLAG 08 Unknown soil name FLAG08 UnknownSoilName is a check that the soil sibling name is correct when a file is uploaded to the Farm Portal. When uploading an OVERSEER file, the file will be rejected if it contains a soil name that is not currently available in Landcare Research's S map database. Users are requested to check that they have entered the name correctly in OVERSEER. 23

24 Appendix 6 FLAG 11 Unrealistic pasture growth There is no GMP or associated proxy for this issue. This flag is implemented due to constraints in applying the pastoral fertiliser GMP. Flag Background The Pastoral Fertiliser GMP uses the pasture growth calculated by OVERSEER as the starting point for all calculations so it is important that all concerned are alerted if the pasture growth rate value in any block is unrealistic. This is most likely to arise from errors in input data such as forgetting to indicate that a block is irrigated or that substantial supplement is used or imported, incorrect setting of relative production values or incorrect climate or soil information. After all the inputs and settings are checked it is possible that the soil and management on the farm is such that genuinely high pasture production is achieved and in this case the file should be passed but this would require manual checking/inspection. In the event that this flag is raised, the submitter should be provided a link to the location in the OVERSEER report where the pasture production is reported, given the value of pasture production that triggered the flag and provided information that might have led to the high pasture growth. End user documentation The following information forms the basis of the end user documentation/information. Unrealistic Pasture Production OVERSEER estimates pasture production from user input values of animal production and so a check for realistic values of pasture production can be an important quality check on OVERSEER data. Values of pasture production can be found in the Scenario reports under Pasture production as shown below. If the value of pasture production is unrealistically high the following items should be checked (this list is not exhaustive but provides a starting point for the most likely causes): Incorrect climate information Incorrect soil property information Incorrect block sizes Incorrect (high) animal production or animal number values Irrigation used but not included in the OVERSEER file Nitrogen fertiliser used but omitted or entered incorrectly in the OVERSEER file Supplements made on the block but not included in the OVERSEER file Supplements imported to the farm but not included in the OVERSEER file All these potential issues, and other inputs, in the OVERSEER file should be checked before proceeding. 24

25 Implementation and Testing of the flag Obtain from the OVERSEER file block level values for pasture production, effluent and nitrogen fertiliser values using: ListOfBlocks/Block/ListOfReports/BlockReport( BlockPastureProductionReportType )/Produ ction/pasturegrowth ListOfBlocks/Block/ListOfReports/BlockReport( BlockNutrientBudgetReportType )/Report/ NutrientsAdded/Effluent/Total/ListOfNutrients/NutrientItem( N ) ListOfBlocks/Block/ListOfReports/BlockReport( BlockNutrientBudgetReportType )/Report/ NutrientsAdded/Fertiliser/Total/ListOfNutrients/NutrientItem( N ) Find out if >0 irrigation is used on the block: ListOfBlocks/Block/ListOfReports/BlockReport( BlockOtherValuesReportType )/Values/ Value/Key( TotalAnnualIrrigation )/Value Use a Trigger Pasture Growth (kg DM /ha /yr) of for rainfed blocks and for irrigated blocks. Correct the pasture growth for effluent and fertiliser N and to the OVERSEER units by: Corrected Pasture Growth (kg DM /ha /yr) = Overseer Pasture Growth EffluentN * 10 FertiliserN * 15 A test file is provided and should return the following results: File Pasture Growth Fertilise rn EffluentN Corrected Pasture Growth Trigger PGR Fate Rainfed pass pass Rainfed fail fail Irrigated pass pass Irrigated fail Fail Irrigated+Eff pass Pass Irrigated+Fert pass Pass Pastoral Fail 25