Autumn manure banned

[snarling bee]

Replying to a couple of pages ago -

If phosphate is as much of an issue as nitrogen, then how will the water companies justify an exemption for cake?? My pig FYM is high in K rather than P.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

That doesn’t answer the question though does it. There needs to be a two way street in all of this and the EA’s lack of responsibility is a route cause. But is conveniently ignored by some.

The EA have no legal responsibility for erosion control or even blockage removal except where they actually own the river.

It's all in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 (or, rather, it's NOT).

They have powers to do those works but only if they choose to.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

RB209 is all written based on trials work but who paid for the trials and decided their methods and aims? If it was the fertiliser industry then it's all heavily biased. Where's the independent trials data on benefits and issues with FYM or slurry for different crops, soils and timings?

 

[Flat 10]

To go back a few steps, there's not much available N in in FYM. Of this a lower percentage will be available in the autumn/over winter (but would mostly be taken up by a winter cereal or osr?) and if ploughed/incorporated in on all but the lightest of sands be available to the spring sown maize, beet, potatoes or whatever. So none of it causes a pollution issue? So the issue is entirely that there is 'some' available N and that there is no agronomic need to apply it in the eyes of the EA? Just getting things straight in my head.

 

[curlietailz]

Had decided that OSR was a no-no but having some might be the only way unless a cover crop complies?

actually my thoughts
I had given up on OSR
But we only have a little bit of FYM compared to the Land we farm
So as much as we are allowed ( having gained FACTS advice first) on the OSR ground
And a bit on the grass to promote growth in spring and after a hay crop

that should about be our quota
Depending on manure analysis and advice of course

I really feel for the bed and breckfast boys without land or enough land
It’s going to get very difficult finding farmers to take the muck going forward :-(

think this might be another way of stopping intensive pigs and poultry

 

[texelburger]

Affecting wildlife I believe. There’s a lot of stuff online about it. Some would be down to sewage but lots down to agriculture.
Farmers have got to be realistic and learn to take ownership of their issues. This is exactly why we are in this position.

We have 3 Farms along the Wye and the Wildlife,imo,is thriving.Lots of ducks and various birds with good numbers of fish being caught,I wouldn't believe everything you read, there is usually an agenda .
However I have seen,with my own eyes,slicks of human sewage travelling downstream in the water and this seems to be in occurring with increasing frequency partly to do with more houses being built and increased rainfall where the water companies haven't upgraded their facilities to accommodate it.There has,also,over the last 10/15 years a large number of poultry houses ,mostly for egg production,built in Powys but I'm not sure how much of an effect this has had.

 

[Hindsight]

RB209 is all written based on trials work but who paid for the trials and decided their methods and aims? If it was the fertiliser industry then it's all heavily biased. Where's the independent trials data on benefits and issues with FYM or slurry for different crops, soils and timings?

The bulk of trials data supporting the advice and recommendations in RB209 was funded by UK government and then subsequently quasi government bodies such as levy boards through various institutions such Rothamsted/ADAS/HRI/SAC conducting the trial work and academic interpretation. As such presume is and was 'independent'. Private contractors too such as ARC / Morley and more latterly NIABTAG. But I assume you probably knew this. The fertiliser industry has done and YARA for one still do trial work. The inference in what you write is that RB209 is wrong and that is written by the fertiliser industry. It was not. Maybe I am wrong and you can correct me. JY.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

The bulk of trials data supporting the advice and recommendations in RB209 was funded by UK government and then subsequently quasi government bodies such as levy boards through various institutions such Rothamsted/ADAS/HRI/SAC conducting the trial work and academic interpretation. As such presume is and was 'independent'. Private contractors too such as ARC / Morley and more latterly NIABTAG. But I assume you probably knew this. The fertiliser industry has done and YARA for one still do trial work. The inference in what you write is that RB209 is wrong and that is written by the fertiliser industry. It was not. Maybe I am wrong and you can correct me. JY.

He implies, you infer. You mean the implication. (I would get out more...)

 

[Yale]

That’s the irony of it, large parts of the most hilly areas of the england aren’t in an nvz

Important issue in hilly areas is not what you may expect.

There is the obvious reduced rates of artificial fertiliser used due to financial viability of the return.

Also due to being areas of higher rainfall this acts to dilute any nutrients which escape into waterways hence there not being an issue of levels being exceeded.

 

[N.Yorks.]

To go back a few steps, there's not much available N in in FYM. Of this a lower percentage will be available in the autumn/over winter (but would mostly be taken up by a winter cereal or osr?) and if ploughed/incorporated in on all but the lightest of sands be available to the spring sown maize, beet, potatoes or whatever. So none of it causes a pollution issue? So the issue is entirely that there is 'some' available N and that there is no agronomic need to apply it in the eyes of the EA? Just getting things straight in my head.

I think you're on the right tracks with that thinking. So if you had land low in P and K indices, could prove it wasn't at very high risk of run off or had much in the way of connectivity with ditches, streams, rivers then you could agronomically justify autumn applications on P and K grounds.

If you also had low organic matter %'s then that would also add weight to the justification. At the moment the Ea guidance says where you've got soil OM% <=3% then that is a Moderate to Very Low situation and it's a straightforward justifaction for OM applications......

Paint the picture and prove the need.......

Obviously this could all be blown out the water when further duidance arrives today .......

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

This is all so obvious. Put a load of muck on a field after the growing season and before a whole winter's worth of rain and snow and watch it rinsed off into the water course. Alternatively do the same thing in the growing season and it gets taken up by plants. Surely it's that simple?

Yes, everyone's got systems and routines and preferences but ultimately autumn muck gets lost. Down the drain literally

 

[holmes65]

How about this
Instead of trying to grow OSR as a break crop and failing ( too far north, wet clay soils, too late etc etc)
We leave the land for a break crop in stubble over winter..... blather all the FYM on in May
Scratch a spring barley crop in “to use the nutrients”
Spray it off because it’s rubbish in July and put a cracking first wheat in
Ground will be rested and replenished

And you will have earned nothing to pay the rent on that land for a year.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The bulk of trials data supporting the advice and recommendations in RB209 was funded by UK government and then subsequently quasi government bodies such as levy boards through various institutions such Rothamsted/ADAS/HRI/SAC conducting the trial work and academic interpretation. As such presume is and was 'independent'. Private contractors too such as ARC / Morley and more latterly NIABTAG. But I assume you probably knew this. The fertiliser industry has done and YARA for one still do trial work. The inference in what you write is that RB209 is wrong and that is written by the fertiliser industry. It was not. Maybe I am wrong and you can correct me. JY.

Yes, you may be quite right. I must try to find out but I do wonder, given that UK governments have been pushing for "science" to be "industry funded" for decades now, whether all those trials were ultimately funded by the fertiliser industry. If so (a big if) then did they gain influence in the trials in return? If not, why would they stump up?

 

[curlietailz]

And you will have earned nothing to pay the rent on that land for a year.

I know
But you will have applied all your muck
And gained a break between cereals ( I know it’s probably only half a break)
Increased your soil health by applying FYM
Used the break to repair ditches and drains and do hedge maintainence
Tidied all the weeds up
And got a good entry into first wheat

all of which should/may increase yield and or margin in the following years
And reduce fertiliser spend in the following years

taking the Gross Margin over the whole 4-6 year rotation rather than each crop

 

[N.Yorks.]

This is all so obvious. Put a load of muck on a field after the growing season and before a whole winter's worth of rain and snow and watch it rinsed off into the water course. Alternatively do the same thing in the growing season and it gets taken up by plants. Surely it's that simple?

Yes, everyone's got systems and routines and preferences but ultimately autumn muck gets lost. Down the drain literally

Depends on the situation as to how much gets lost....... rainfall, slope angle, crop cover, drains, proximity to ditch/stream/river, high soil nutrient levels, soil damage, tramline directions........

When all of those are extreme then they come together as a polluting combination....... but it works the other way too.

 

[Hindsight]

Yes, you may be quite right. I must try to find out but I do wonder, given that UK governments have been pushing for "science" to be "industry funded" for decades now, whether all those trials were ultimately funded by the fertiliser industry. If so (a big if) then did they gain influence in the trials in return? If not, why would they stump up?

The short answer ( I say) is no.

RB209 has developed over decades becoming more wide ranging and detailed with every revised version. The wider industry is invited to provide information and evidence at each consultation period, which are roughly every five years or so. Bear in mind RB209 is not new - the core data and academic presumptions date back to beginning of agricultural science - in the 1950s / 60s.

The core of the organic manures section generated I believe by ADAS at the Gleadthorpe and Boxworth sites through the 1980s through to 2000s. The other sections again primarily government funded research institutions. More recently (2000 - 2015) as an example, NIABTAG provided evidence to the consultation process on nitrogen rates based on its extensive trials data base. I assume NIABTAG is not in influenced by fertiliser manufacturers. NIABTAG, Rothamsted and others collaborated a few years ago undertaking trial work to review Phosphate evidence - funded in main by AHDB levy money. A while spent looking over the AHDB research database will show you the reports.

YARA and other manufacturers of fertilizers do undertake trials. And can and do participate in the RB209 review process - putting forward data generated in their trials. But this and the other data is peer reviewed in the RB209 sub committees - each crop / land use sector has a separate sub committee. There is academic rigour within the review process. Whether commercial pressure can be brought to bear I am not able to say. But my take has been observation is that data is not unduly taken note of. But of course I could be wrong.

Where RB209 is now lacking possibly in comment is the 'new science' you have in earlier posts referred too which seem to me to a align with regenerative agriculture (whatever that means to the individual). Something for the next B209 edition. I think the current version is tenth edition. I presume it will soon be reviewed. The regenerative folk and there advisers will be welcome, I expect. to contribute to the review process. I hope they do.

 

[ollie989898]

If UK agriculture wants to stick it to the ivory towers everyone just needs to stop agreeing to take paper waste, sewage and the like and it will all fall down like a house of cards.

I used to actively encourage application of manures or slurries prior to establishing the next crop- we don't get deep cold winters now which means crops are ticking along and growing all the time, they looked better come the spring because the nutrients had been sustaining them. The difference between land that had been 'fed' and land that had not was massive.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I suppose if you had a warm dryish winter and compared it to a drought followed by heavy rain in the summer you might have the opposite effect. But on balance and on average you would lose more over winter.

 

[Flat 10]

This is all so obvious. Put a load of muck on a field after the growing season and before a whole winter's worth of rain and snow and watch it rinsed off into the water course. Alternatively do the same thing in the growing season and it gets taken up by plants. Surely it's that simple?

Yes, everyone's got systems and routines and preferences but ultimately autumn muck gets lost. Down the drain literally

Disagree. What makes you think my post a few back is wrong?

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Disagree. What makes you think my post a few back is wrong?

Because plants grow in the summer time?