- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Report every occasion on 0800 807060. The EA cannot then claim ignorance of the issue at least.
How come they can claim it is unacceptable when it is all so blatant. It’s like a farmer backing a slurry tanker up to the river and letting the lot straight in.just leave this here
Fury as ‘two billion litres of sewage dumped into Thames in two days’
More than two billion litres of raw sewage were dumped in the River Thames in just two days, according to a report.www.standard.co.uk
All you ever get though is a picture of a potato field with mud flowing onto a road saying how naughty us farmers are. Wouldn’t be so bad if we made the sort of money these water companies do.The only time our river has high Phosphate levels is when raw sewage is discharged into it.This came from a Guy testing the water for the EA !! He said farming is not to blame but the water companies.He tested the water last autumn after muck spreading and virtually zero Phosphate.I think manure is absorbed quickly by the growing crop and a lot binds to the soil particles in the ground.
And the worst things is the water companies just add the fines onto our bills.......................All you ever get though is a picture of a potato field with mud flowing onto a road saying how naughty us farmers are. Wouldn’t be so bad if we made the sort of money these water companies do.
The difference is the farmer does not have permission to do it so anything being dumped will be frowned upon. The sewage companies have permission as otherwise according to the article it will back up into residences. The difficulty then is to find a threshold on when to frown upon that. Its difficult to prove they have gone over a limit if that limit isn't 0.How come they can claim it is unacceptable when it is all so blatant. It’s like a farmer backing a slurry tanker up to the river and letting the lot straight in.
So what’s the point in measuring the phosphate levels in the rivers if they can’t pinpoint themThe difference is the farmer does not have permission to do it so anything being dumped will be frowned upon. The sewage companies have permission as otherwise according to the article it will back up into residences. The difficulty then is to find a threshold on when to frown upon that. Its difficult to prove they have gone over a limit if that limit isn't 0.
Surely they have data and that's all? It's quite a handy way of avoiding sending a project through the ethics committee having historic data.You're right, but the BBC are only peddling information there that has been given to them by "the largest beef processor in the UK and Ireland"
Sadly the mis-information goes right the way up those who consider themselves the leaders of our industry.
My nephew's Harper dissertation this year is comparing conventional with Grass-Fed beef production. The sponsor of his project is ABP. He's been told not to do any data collection for his study, ABP have all the information he needs.
It sounds like the BBC will have the information too!
All this talk about ELMS, carbon neutrality, healthy eating and even NVZs is futile until the methane cycle is understood. There's almost a case for it being on the National Curriculum.
Tell them to inspect the local sewage works records before they call round to you, just so you won’t feel discriminated against!View attachment 1011603
Can someone tell them that it’s not us then.
That’ll be the same ABP that clearly state they want to reduce slaughter times in the R4 piece then? All based on not understanding cyclical methane to start with. Doesn’t matter what system you use the methane isn’t the problem.Surely they have data and that's all? It's quite a handy way of avoiding sending a project through the ethics committee having historic data.
I'm pretty sure other meat processors are getting keen on pasture fed beef (especially as a premium product) maybe APB are too?
Farms are expected to separate clean water or have sufficient storage no matter how big a job or how big a costFarms separate rainwater as we have to collect it if it contacts muck or slurry. That would be a massive job to rebuild our sewer system to separate clean and dirty water
The last sentence is the crux of the issue as I understand it. Sorting it would be a monumental task which is why no one‘s interested in doing something about it. We are sadly at a point in time where we have huge problems in all areas where we’ve not done anything about them for decades.Some of the beaches round here failed for years and lots of streams been fenced off, water troughs installed and farm inspections in the catchment area. My experience was supportive advice, others not so much.
There is a huge influx of summer visitors to second homes and caravan sites which overwhelmed the system so a temporary treatment plant was installed and hey presto the water quality has gone to excellent in that bay.
The problem is when it rains it all goes down the same sewer pipe. Farms separate rainwater as we have to collect it if it contacts muck or slurry. That would be a massive job to rebuild our sewer system to separate clean and dirty water
No, speaking to someone who works for them - I think they are starting to look at pasture fed beef as a premium product.That’ll be the same ABP that clearly state they want to reduce slaughter times in the R4 piece then? All based on not understanding cyclical methane to start with. Doesn’t matter what system you use the methane isn’t the problem.
I may have misheard that radio piece? I was listening mainly to the methane rubbish but someone said it while mentioning ABP I’m sure?No, speaking to someone who works for them - I think they are starting to look at pasture fed beef as a premium product.