Red Tractor - Manure Heaps

[bitwrx]

dunno about pig assurance but this is not a requirement fo cattle muck. Fenced off to prevent stock getting on- yes . The heaping up as small as possible mentioned above is an NVZ requirement

Nothing I could see in the pig standard about turning/monitoring. Plenty about safe application to land, none of which difficult to comply with.

Thank you @Midnight plough boy for giving me cause to check. Love a bit of compliance on a Saturday eve.

 

[Princess Pooper]

Yes, he has potatoes in the rotation.

Suspect fresh produce assurance is your answer then, although as they would normally be cooked they are the lowest risk category within the standard.

 

[Midnight plough boy]

Suspect fresh produce assurance is your answer then, although as they would normally be cooked they are the lowest risk category within the standard.

Thank you for your help on this PP

 

[icanshootwell]

Sounds like you have no bull shite in the Scottish highlands

 

[Netherfield]

View attachment 848628View attachment 848629View attachment 848628View attachment 848629View attachment 848628View attachment 848629

There's no such word as 'containation' that I can find anywhere.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Do you guys that are FA not read the rules before you apply to join the club? It's either in the rules, in which case you should all be doing it (and it should be no surprise), or else it's not and you just tell the inspector to do one. I can't understand how these issues manage to keep cropping up at all - they do publish the rules, don't they?

A fair point.
What happens in practice is that most of us do read all the rules when we join and the updates of changes as they happen. The problem is 'mission creep' and interpretation. Things that are considered good practice become a requirement and certain inspectors will try to find ways that you are not compliant. One year I was told to drill holes in all the tyres that go on the clamp as otherwise they posed a risk of containing stagnant water. I've never heard it mentioned again.
As has been alluded to throughout this thread, one of the main problems is a lack of any respect for the knowledge of farmers by those in authority. There are some ignorant twits in this industry,as with any, but we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush.
Nobody has better knowledge of our own farms and the appropriate ways to manage them and there isn't a much better way of training the future generation than to have them working along side. It is good to get people in to classrooms to improve knowledge and learn fresh ideas but it should not fail to respect the value of experience in situ.

 

[4course]

how come the inspectors never ask to see any claims against loads sent away either in terms of moisture admix etc( they never have here). I would have thought that that would be the easiest and simplest way to tell if any one was not adhering to the spirit of the combinable crops standards . It would remove a whole load of paper chasing as if youve had no claims or rejections you are performing above the standards and can prove it so in reality dont need inspecting as often if at all .We are constantly having to fill in risk assesments etc but if you havnt had claims/rejections in my view you are low risk and should be treated as such ,

 

[manhill]

Only the stuff that comes out of the bulls.

I've chosen not to be FA, and manage fine without. I do spend a lot of my professional life verifying compliance with various rules though, and would never consider entertaining an audit or inspection unless I had checked myself against the rules in advance.

Do you suffer a discount for not being FA when you sell?

 

[Highland Mule]

Do you suffer a discount for not being FA when you sell?

Don’t sell much through the markets as most goes off direct to customer, but probably lose about £10 a head on mule ewe lambs and nothing on prime. When I weigh up the effort to do it right, and the costs of membership, it isn’t worth my time when I cost that in at an honest rate.

 

[farmerm]

I was with a client recently that had a non conformance on his Red Tractor inspection as he doesn’t record the temperature of his muck heaps (temporary in field ones), doesn’t aerate them, and also they must be kept for 6 months before spreading. This is pig FYM.

Can anyone tell me why the treatment of a manure heap over a km from a grain store or any livestock has any influence on the quality of the product leaving the farm? Or is this just to keep jobs for the boys @Guy Smith ?

I though this was an inspection making it up but bad new guys, after a bit of digging I see most of us crop producers are indeed signed up to this rule, its been there since at least 2017!! Turns out it is not part of any of the livestock standards..... it is however on both the Fresh Produce and Combinable Crops standards !! It falls under Standard EC-m s "Fertilisers and soil improvement products must be applied to land in a manner which minimises the risk of contamination and pollution" part of this is standard is that "Soil improvement products applied in accordance with Appendices (Safe Applications to Land & Manure Management Plan)"

The "Safe Applications to Land & Manure Management Plan" guidance is in Appendix EC-m which reads as follow:

"Farmyard Manure (FYM) – Fresh, Stored or Treated Batch storage of solid manures and slurries for at least 6 months (that is with no additions of fresh manure made to the store during this period) or ‘active’ treatment, are effective methods of killing pathogens. Composting of solid manures is a particularly effective method of controlling microbial pathogens, but for best results the process needs to be actively managed. The manure should be treated as a batch and turned regularly (at least twice within the first 7 days) either with a front-end loader or preferably with a purpose-built compost turner. This should generate high temperatures over a period of time (e.g. above 55°C for 3 days) which are effective in killing pathogens and this temperature should be monitored. Allow the compost to mature as part of the treatment process. The whole process should last at least 3 months. Lime treatment of slurry (addition of quick lime or slaked lime to raise the pH to 12 for at least 2 hours) is an effective method of inactivating bacterial pathogens. Allow the slurry to mature as part of the batch treatment process for at least 3 months prior to land spreading."

That said I think this should be listed as an advisory rather than a minor breach on the inspection report.. The key point in my eyes is the use of the word "should" which I do not believe to be legally the same as "must" I would consider this as advice on manure management rather than it being a enforceable requirement of the standards.. I believe Incorporation into the soil combined with sufficient time between manure application and harvesting are also rather effective methods of eliminating or at least reducing pathogens to acceptable levels..

 

[4course]

I thought somewhere the rules on land use meant a muckhill couldnt be in the same place for a year ,if ive read the above correctly 6months once heap made plus maturing 3 months and then another 3months prior to spreading is a year and so falls foul of cross compliance land use or maybe ive read it wrong

 

[farmerm]

I thought somewhere the rules on land use meant a muckhill couldnt be in the same place for a year ,if ive read the above correctly 6months once heap made plus maturing 3 months and then another 3months prior to spreading is a year and so falls foul of cross compliance land use or maybe ive read it wrong

I think it is a BPS eligibility rule rather than cross compliance? I think a temporary muck heap is only temporary for BPS purposes if it is present for less than a year, if you consistently keep muck in the same place you have to exclude the area it occupies from your BPS claim.

 

[Hindsight]

I thought somewhere the rules on land use meant a muckhill couldnt be in the same place for a year ,if ive read the above correctly 6months once heap made plus maturing 3 months and then another 3months prior to spreading is a year and so falls foul of cross compliance land use or maybe ive read it wrong

Correct for Nitrate Vulnerable Zone regulations. 365 days in one place. This a BPS cross compliance matter as NVZ regs cme under Cross Compliance.

 

[Hindsight]

I think it is a BPS eligibility rule rather than cross compliance? I think a temporary muck heap is only temporary for BPS purposes if it is present for less than a year, if you consistently keep muck in the same place you have to exclude the area it occupies from your BPS claim.

NVZ regulations stipulate, I think, manure heaps to not be in one location more than a calendar year. Await to be corrected.

 

[farmerm]

NVZ regulations stipulate, I think, manure heaps to not be in one location more than a calendar year. Await to be corrected.

I am not in an NVZ (for now) but yes it would appear you are correct.

 

[Tarw Coch]

NVZ regulations stipulate, I think, manure heaps to not be in one location more than a calendar year. Await to be corrected.

And not in that location more than once in 3 years I think

 

[Hindsight]

And not in that location more than once in 3 years I think

Yes, that as well. Can so easily see why mistakes are made, dates and dates and dates - and none edible!