I was thinking that. Who incorporates nitram for instance. And how does that all work with Defra SFI wanting more no till?
Autumn manure banned
- Thread starter l'ordinary bonville
- Start date
- Location
- Sedgefield
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Does it mean an end to "top dressing" and all future fertiliser has to go in the seedbed?
Midnight plough boy
Member
- Location
- Hertfordshire
No - incorporation is one of a number of ways they suggest to reduce water pollution should the land manager deem the risk high enough. I would suggest that application of manufactured fertilisers doesn’t need incorporating when weather conditions allow - ie light rain after application. If you applied bagged N and then the forecast turns to biblical rain then to reduce surface run off, incorporation would reduce the risk (what I’d does to the crop is a different kettle of fish)Does it mean an end to "top dressing" and all future fertiliser has to go in the seedbed?
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Does it mean an end to "top dressing" and all future fertiliser has to go in the seedbed?
Flat Fen land less risk than hilly Devon? Taking into account risk?
Bit more rain in the wet SW so that dilutes the problem
The solution to pollution is dilution 
Cab-over Pete
Member
- Location
- Kenilworth, Warwickshire
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Surely a lack of available P would justify a crop requirement, wouldn't it?
If your soil test doesn't distinguish between available and unavailable then you won't know anyway.
Cab-over Pete
Member
- Location
- Kenilworth, Warwickshire
So you could maybe prove with a combination of tissue tests and soil tests that you need to apply P in the autumn seedbed even if you seem to have enough already.
Doesn’t help much with anything that has N included, but every little helps and all that.
Is it the N that the EA are more worried about or the P? (to save me trawling through it all) Or likely both.
Doesn’t help much with anything that has N included, but every little helps and all that.
Is it the N that the EA are more worried about or the P? (to save me trawling through it all) Or likely both.
Keep up at the back! that's what we've been discussing all day! I'm not sure that their bright and breezy synopsis reflects what the Regulatory Position Statement actually says.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Like most Regulatory Position Statements, it needs another statement to turn it into plain english so we can actually make any use of it!
beardface
Member
- Location
- East Yorkshire
Looks like a case of JFDI.
- Location
- Matching Green
I actually thought that their email headline was misleading.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Hmm.... I'm not a fan of slurry on the ground, and will be honest enough to set that down npw; it's touted as being a 'good thing' if done properly, whereas the reality is that it is something that has to be got rid of, end of story.For any full time professional farmer in the U.K., IMO, this is the most relevant thread on the forum and for some time. I had noticed you hadn’t contributed.
I watch for myself as this practice is a vital part of our enterprise, in fact, as I write there is a new spreader waiting at the dealers for me to collect.
With many friends and family farming in the U.K. I see this a very serious, don’t you?
I was originally drawn to the thread as my still current combine was bought from the OP, nearly exactly 10 years ago, more significant to myself than he I guess as my dad died 3 days after
I can't see any rational arguments against fym of whatever type being made or spread; I can see several regarding slurry. And - and this is of real importance - I know of loads of people who go (and as far as I know have always gone) way over the top in spreading slurry, both in the amount at any one time, the frequency and the occasion, i.e. weather wise.
Yes it is serious; what do you think should and shouldn't be permitted?
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
It does come up previously that some farmers have been farmers worst enemy, as you also illustrate. Our sensitive areas are very small and local and my next door is a dairy farmer and certainly some of his activities really annoy me (well generally) and specifically as they jeopardise our current freedom.
Well. It suits me to spread on dry stubble from now ahead of autumn drilled cereals, I do have concern about loosing N over winter and we are trying a product on the bedding in winter that is supposed to make nutrients less likely to leach. Does it have any effect? No idea
. Our cereal area is getting quite large against our herd so applications are not huge, soil is dry (well this year, not at the moment
) andour cereal has a fair spurt through the autumn .Most muck in this area is used ahead of maize so that makes sense except to my mind maize is a disaster in itself.
Generally, I certainly think autumn spreading ahead of winter cereals is the best all round solution for muck and sludge
. Application has to be a sensible amount and with sensible timing, again, maybe where farmers have let us down in the past.- Location
- Sedgefield
Generally, I certainly think autumn spreading ahead of winter cereals is the best all round solution for muck and sludge
except under the new rules today I believe you cannot do this
Apply sludge or slurry or FYM to stubbles ahead of winter cereals
There is no crop requirement according to RB209
- Location
- Limousin/Charentes toad land
I was answering the question « what I thought »
Looks like a huge problem. So huge surely there will be a solution
- Location
- East yorks
Yup do it in Feb, make foot deep wheelings wash a load of soil into the dykes, have to wait till April to get them ripped and levelled up and get a mediocre crop of May drilled spring barley that doesn’t use the nutrients which then get washed out.
But hey at least you spread it in spring so the EA are happy
[emoji23]