Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Therefore every reason to have all farms audited who send grain into this country. That would be a level playing field but imagine the chaos it would bring to those farms across the globe.Ban all imports grown using urea?
It's ok. The mills can have the driver of the lorry that picks it up certify that it doesn't look like it had urea applied when it was grown.Therefore every reason to have all farms audited who send grain into this country. That would be a level playing field but imagine the chaos it would bring to those farms across the globe.
They should be fighting harder to disprove the exaggerated affect of flawed science that was behind the ammonia worries concerning urea, the old Adas work, urea onto chalk soil on may and covered in plastic to measure the emissions.
CF have aggressively used this work to demonise urea over the years, and look at what those bunch of c**ts have done recently.
don’t allow urea to be spread after a certain date, that’s fine by me. Red tractor do not need to police it, and as we know red tractor is all a massive loads of rubbish we can just make up on the day anyway because it is meaningless.
I despair, this should not be dressed up as a win.
I don’t like the bit about working with the AIC. CF top guy is on AIC board. The NFU is supposed to represent farmers, not work with those who profit from us. The nfu’s priorities seem to be completely skewed.Depressing isn't it?
I despair, this should not be dressed up as a win.
I suspect that there will be an awful lot of fertiliser recorded as having been spread in the last week of March.
The recommendation I use is that if using urea get it on before the end of marchFast forward 12 months time assuming that this is implemented and farmers follow the rules (and fertiliser were a "normal" price for a normal year [which it won't be]):
1. Farmers who usually use urea will need to switch their 2nd and 3rd dressings to another product. So that's a massive drop in urea requirement which needs to be replaced with something else. Either AN or protected urea. Thus massive increase in demand for these products, massive supply increase required. Where is all this extra 2/3rds product going to come from? Neither are a particularly common global commodity - most fertiliser used worldwide is standard urea.
2. Add to that a farmer who usually buys 1 or 2 artic loads of urea fertiliser for his total crop requirement can now only (weather/heavy land permitting!) apply the first dressing as urea. But 1 or 2 artics doesn't split into three, so logic suggests he'll switch his whole requirement to another product. So some farms would therefore 100% switch to AN or protected urea.
Not to mention that - I would not wish to apply AN or protected urea to my crops out of choice. AN rusts the spreader, and protected product contains formaldehyde which will cause havoc with soil life.
As a country our politicians/civil servants have started becoming very very picky about how things should be done and think they can control everything. World food markets are far bigger than any government.
At a time when you're lucky if you can get any fertiliser, let alone at a sensible price it's not a great time to be picking and choosing what product you are to use like UK Govt want to do. It's really not a buyers market. As @JCfarmer points out above - this can only lead to MASSIVE food security issues in this country exacerbating the existing problems we are making.....let alone CHOOSING to make life more difficult and expensive.
It's not farmers who will lose out.....it's the UK population who will pay more. Farmers may not have much of a voice on this, but the UK population have votes.
Give it ten years and they will be worrying about the effects of inhibitors on soil health / getting in to water.
Irrespective what we do, someone will always whine for column inches.