Autumn manure banned

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Maybe send gifts of a load of slurry/FYM to all the MPs homes, then they would all have to declare them as gifts to parliament.
Maybe be supper generous and add the EA top brass to the gift list as well.
We could all have a good laugh watching the EA try to shovel it out the way with there clipboards😂😂
 

JP1

Member
Livestock Farmer

B'o'B

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Rutland
No reprieve as you are still required to notify the EA of your planned action












Then you're on the radar
And if you don't notify them and spread anyway (if/when) you get a visit, easy enforcement action could well follow.
The article does specifically say no enforcement action, provided you informed the EA, and as long as you also managed to follow their incomprehensible requirements.

Camel thought the eye of a needle springs to mind.
 
Last edited:

e3120

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Northumberland
At least we have another year to kick the can down the road......

Hardly. Not on sandy soil, not where subsoiling/moling has been done in last 12 months, not within 10m of a drain and only if you can demonstrate leaching will be less than 5kg N/Ha. Need to apply for permission so they'll be round to inspect your evidence of the above.
 

B'o'B

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Rutland
Just had an email from TAG/NIAB regarding this. Upshot can be summed up in this quote from it

"But using this RPS, as it stands, to be able to apply organic manures this autumn/winter is fundamentally very risky for farmers and advisors and, I would suggest, should be avoided if at all possible."
 

e3120

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Northumberland
They've played a blinder by managing to be able to claim that they've made the situation easier than before, whilst in reality forcing farmers to seriously compromise existing practices.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
How does one prove that one doesn't have field drains? Surely the onus should be on the EA to prove that rules have been breached by providing evidence that the field DOES have them?

Our are we now guilty until proven innocent?

And what if they are there but don't work? Some of this farm was "restored", after digging sand by Redland Aggregates, including laying plastic field drains within a year of back filling. Those drains don't run due to settlement and the ditch they dug to run them to is always dry.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
They've played a blinder by managing to be able to claim that they've made the situation easier than before, whilst in reality forcing farmers to seriously compromise existing practices.
Really?

If you read through this from the AHDB impact assessment I beg to differ:

It is recognised that manure management practices that aim to reduce one form of pollution (e.g. nitrate to water) should not exacerbate losses by another route - so called ‘pollution swapping’ (Newell-Price et al. 2011). However, it can be seen from the results of the modelling exercise that a move to predominantly spring applications as a result of the EA’s interpretation of Rule 1 of FRfW, although decreasing nitrate leaching losses by c.60%, are likely to increase ammonia emissions by c.10% and P losses by c.30%. The risk of soil damage as a result of applications to wet soils is also greater in the spring. The impact would be greatest for bulky, low RAN materials that are currently incorporated in the autumn ahead of winter crop establishment, particularly pig and poultry manures, and predominantly for the arable regions in the East of England where these materials are applied. These results have considerable implications for the successful implementation of the Clean Air Strategy and UK Governments ammonia emission reduction targets (i.e. to reduce emissions by 16% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels, in order to meet the National Emissions Ceilings Directive and Gothenburg Protocol target). Moreover, the potential for increased P loss in the spring has implications for compliance with the Water Framework Directive. Indeed, as well as considering the total nutrient loss, it is important to consider the concentration in the drainage water. While it is likely that dilution (and transformation) of N and P in the drainage water leaving a field will reduce the impact on receiving waters, this is dependent on the amount, duration and intensity of rainfall (Goulding et al. 2000). Therefore the risk of non-compliance of water bodies is likely to be in the East of England, with the lowest annual rainfall totals and potential for dilution.
 

robs1

Member
Just shows what a bunch of idiots the EA are, no idea if the real world, what they need is some university educated people with brains, ah I see the problem
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
Really?

If you read through this from the AHDB impact assessment I beg to differ:

It is recognised that manure management practices that aim to reduce one form of pollution (e.g. nitrate to water) should not exacerbate losses by another route - so called ‘pollution swapping’ (Newell-Price et al. 2011). However, it can be seen from the results of the modelling exercise that a move to predominantly spring applications as a result of the EA’s interpretation of Rule 1 of FRfW, although decreasing nitrate leaching losses by c.60%, are likely to increase ammonia emissions by c.10% and P losses by c.30%. The risk of soil damage as a result of applications to wet soils is also greater in the spring. The impact would be greatest for bulky, low RAN materials that are currently incorporated in the autumn ahead of winter crop establishment, particularly pig and poultry manures, and predominantly for the arable regions in the East of England where these materials are applied. These results have considerable implications for the successful implementation of the Clean Air Strategy and UK Governments ammonia emission reduction targets (i.e. to reduce emissions by 16% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels, in order to meet the National Emissions Ceilings Directive and Gothenburg Protocol target). Moreover, the potential for increased P loss in the spring has implications for compliance with the Water Framework Directive. Indeed, as well as considering the total nutrient loss, it is important to consider the concentration in the drainage water. While it is likely that dilution (and transformation) of N and P in the drainage water leaving a field will reduce the impact on receiving waters, this is dependent on the amount, duration and intensity of rainfall (Goulding et al. 2000). Therefore the risk of non-compliance of water bodies is likely to be in the East of England, with the lowest annual rainfall totals and potential for dilution.

Just shows what a bunch of idiots the EA are, no idea if the real world, what they need is some university educated people with brains, ah I see the problem

That's the problem right across the board in this country, we've bred a generation of educated idiots


The difficulty is conflicting losses of the various nutrient. The reality is if society (all 70million) crammed on a small island ate less meat (from monogastrics in particular) then there wouldn't be the manure issue for society to attend to through imposing regulations on farmers. There also wouldn't be the livestock farmers to have to impose the regulations on. It would involve society (the 70 million citizens) consuming a grains and vegetable diet with much less meat.
 

chipchap

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Shropshire
Our industry is slowly but surely drowning under a sea of red tape and regulation that is mostly ill conceived, drawn up by people who have a very poor understanding of the broader implications of their actions and opinions.

Within twenty years our own population in the UK will be hungry.
 

e3120

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Northumberland
Really?

If you read through this from the AHDB impact assessment I beg to differ:

It is recognised that manure management practices that aim to reduce one form of pollution (e.g. nitrate to water) should not exacerbate losses by another route - so called ‘pollution swapping’ (Newell-Price et al. 2011). However, it can be seen from the results of the modelling exercise that a move to predominantly spring applications as a result of the EA’s interpretation of Rule 1 of FRfW, although decreasing nitrate leaching losses by c.60%, are likely to increase ammonia emissions by c.10% and P losses by c.30%. The risk of soil damage as a result of applications to wet soils is also greater in the spring. The impact would be greatest for bulky, low RAN materials that are currently incorporated in the autumn ahead of winter crop establishment, particularly pig and poultry manures, and predominantly for the arable regions in the East of England where these materials are applied. These results have considerable implications for the successful implementation of the Clean Air Strategy and UK Governments ammonia emission reduction targets (i.e. to reduce emissions by 16% in 2030 compared to 2005 levels, in order to meet the National Emissions Ceilings Directive and Gothenburg Protocol target). Moreover, the potential for increased P loss in the spring has implications for compliance with the Water Framework Directive. Indeed, as well as considering the total nutrient loss, it is important to consider the concentration in the drainage water. While it is likely that dilution (and transformation) of N and P in the drainage water leaving a field will reduce the impact on receiving waters, this is dependent on the amount, duration and intensity of rainfall (Goulding et al. 2000). Therefore the risk of non-compliance of water bodies is likely to be in the East of England, with the lowest annual rainfall totals and potential for dilution.
I only meant a 'spin' blinder, not in any way a practical or broad-thinking one.

The FW headline is about a year's reprieve, when it should read: "Farmers only allowed to spread manure in limited circumstances, after asking permission"
 
Last edited:

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
This year will be the EA constructing the "naughty list". Unsheeted chicken muck; fym too near ditches etc. Expect to be offered (required) to have a little chat showing how to comply in the future. Then next year random visits and big tellings off for non compliance.
 

Chalky

Member
Exactly.

Avoid derogation like the plague! If used, only for a lowest risk thing eg 'you dumped 3000T cattle muck for a block going into wheat and no time to move elsewhere'. I think yard muck is collateral damage that they have had to include because it has N in to fit their rhetoric.

Would not fancy admitting to having to empty thousands of cu fluid waste in the autumn onto land for cereals. As said, you will be on that hit list!
 

B'o'B

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Rutland
Exactly.

Avoid derogation like the plague! If used, only for a lowest risk thing eg 'you dumped 3000T cattle muck for a block going into wheat and no time to move elsewhere'. I think yard muck is collateral damage that they have had to include because it has N in to fit their rhetoric.

Would not fancy admitting to having to empty thousands of cu fluid waste in the autumn onto land for cereals. As said, you will be on that hit list!
I’m not sure anything is low risk with this (possibly with the exception of compost as medium risk!)
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,291
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top