Autumn manure banned

[B'o'B]

Thats my thoughts but having read that document i was really not sure if i had to tell them or just pop it on as normal as the turnips will use it

I only have a 1st in engineering so not sure i am of the required standard to decipher an EA rule and communication ........

Definitely over qualified!!
You should have got a 3rd in Drama Studies, then you might stand a chance!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

NFU response to the RPS:

Stuart Roberts said
“I am deeply disappointed with the content of the statement by the Environment Agency, which sets an idealistic and impractical barrier in many farming situations. We’ve made multiple approaches over the past two years urging Defra and the Environment Agency to set achievable objectives to make best use of organic manures, slurries and biowastes – this seems to have been ignored, and I am still to hear from Defra ministers despite having written twice in recent months.

"To find ourselves in this situation so close to autumn shows a complete lack of appreciation of the bigger picture; these materials improve soil health and replace manmade fertilisers while use at this time of year reduces ammonia emissions compared to applications in spring. This legislation must be applied in a way that recognises the wider benefits of using organic manures sustainably.

“Farmers have made great strides over recent decades in reducing key agricultural emissions. We’ve seen a major reduction in the amount of manures and fertiliser applied to farmland and held in the soil, which means far less nutrients reaching our rivers than in the past. Much of this progress has been made by farmers taking voluntary action through industry-led initiatives to drive improvements that benefit the water environment, as well as on farm productivity."

The AHDB have a good, if long, regulatory impact assessment available here: https://projectblue.blob.core.windo...h Papers/FRfW impact assessment June 2021.pdf

The key bit is this IMHO (emphasis is mine not theirs):
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.

 

[Salopian_Will]

Pig and Poultry industry are finished.

Nonsense.

 

[ajd132]

Nonsense.

Don’t listen to him he’s already given up!

 

[warksfarmer]

Nonsense.

Good luck.

 

[Spencer]

NFU response to the RPS:

Stuart Roberts said
I am still to hear from Defra ministers despite having written twice in recent months.

And we were all wondering where the NFU were on this...

Never fear lads they have sent two emails..!

 

[Hindsight]

And we were all wondering where the NFU were on this...

Never fear lads they have sent two emails..!

Stuart hasn't got the hang of this. NFU should have slipped Ben Ellliot a brown envelope with cheque for the Tory Party, then the NFU could have got a meeting with Boris Johnson (Billy Bunter himself) Or probably even better with Carrie - the organ grinder rather than the monkey.

 

[nelly55]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

 

[clemmo]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

If there’s a crop need you can apply

 

[R J]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

Will be a 2nd rape

 

[DRC]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

Who’s to say everyone’s heard of these rules, as not all farmers bother with the internet, social media etc.

 

[warksfarmer]

NFU response to the RPS:

Stuart Roberts said
“I am deeply disappointed with the content of the statement by the Environment Agency, which sets an idealistic and impractical barrier in many farming situations. We’ve made multiple approaches over the past two years urging Defra and the Environment Agency to set achievable objectives to make best use of organic manures, slurries and biowastes – this seems to have been ignored, and I am still to hear from Defra ministers despite having written twice in recent months.


“Farmers have made great strides over recent decades in reducing key agricultural emissions. We’ve seen a major reduction in the amount of manures and fertiliser applied to farmland and held in the soil, which means far less nutrients reaching our rivers than in the past. Much of this progress has been made by farmers taking voluntary action through industry-led initiatives to drive improvements that benefit the water environment, as well as on farm productivity."

The AHDB have a good, if long, regulatory impact assessment available here: https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Research Papers/FRfW impact assessment June 2021.pdf

The key bit is this IMHO (emphasis is mine not theirs):
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.

It’s because the None Farming Union are a laughing stock among political circles. They have zero clout.

 

[DRC]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

And it’s not autumn yet. Still summer hopefully

 

[nelly55]

So are you saying that you can spread fym until the calendar says it’s autumn

 

[e3120]

Well just seen someone spreading fym on to rape stubble,do rules not apply to some folk.

That action is more acceptable today than it was last week/year, as previously it would have been a rule 1 breach, but now allowed if all the hoops have been cleared, even with no crop need.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

 

[DRC]

So are you saying that you can spread fym until the calendar says it’s autumn

Well it does say Autumn spreading ban. We are putting some grass seeds in which require fertiliser to grow into a feed for sheep,so why can’t we apply that as manure. It’s only August, not Autumn

 

[robs1]

Well it does say Autumn spreading ban. We are putting some grass seeds in which require fertiliser to grow into a feed for sheep,so why can’t we apply that as manure. It’s only August, not Autumn

Can apply fert to grass to mid sept, world is bonkers

 

[jonnieboy]

So if I direct drill and can get a Facts advisor to say I need a bit of nutrition instead of cultivating then I stick to the NVZ limit of 250 kg of available N
Which equates to very near 12 t / acre
Can I crack on ? Sorry been too busy to read and digest it all

 

[warksfarmer]

That action is more acceptable today than it was last week/year, as previously it would have been a rule 1 breach, but now allowed if all the hoops have been cleared, even with no crop need.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

If anybody believes the EA won’t prosecute then you might be in for a shock. The whole point of the document release is so you have to make your own decision because the wording is confusing on purpose. It’s how you interpret it.

Remember the EA survives off fines in the main. All the doc has done is set up a lot of income for them.

 

[B'o'B]

So if I direct drill and can get a Facts advisor to say I need a bit of nutrition instead of cultivating then I stick to the NVZ limit of 250 kg of available N
Which equates to very near 12 t / acre
Can I crack on ? Sorry been too busy to read and digest it all

Not according to the Q&A document unless you need P.
To be honest I don't think anyone know what you can and can't do at the moment. I was hoping FACTS would come out with something more helpful, but their email didn't really shed much light.