Defra imposes tougher requirements for autumn muckspreading

Farm organisations have expressed relief that autumn muck and slurry spreading will be allowed to continue, but farmers will in future have to provide a much clearer justification for doing so.

Fears that autumn spreading could be banned were triggered when Defra announced a snap review of the practice late last year.

This was in response to a High Court case that had criticised the guidance Defra gives the Environment Agency when it comes to enforcing the Farming Rules for Water.

See also: Defra launches ‘snap review’ of autumn muckspreading

The existing guidance, which dates back to 2018, says that nutrients may be applied to cereal land in sufficient quantity to meet crop need.

This has been taken to mean the crop’s “total” nutrient requirement over the course of a whole year.

But, in a case brought by environmental campaign group River Action, the judge said slurries and manures should only be spread in sufficient quantity to meet the crop’s “immediate” need.

Many in the industry expected this would lead to a ban on autumn muckspreading as it would be hard to show that autumn-sown crops actually need the nutrients at that time of year.

New guidance

However, new guidance issued by Defra this week makes no mention of a ban on autumn spreading or meeting a crop’s “immediate” nutrient need.

Instead, it stresses that farmers must take steps to demonstrate more clearly why they need to spread organic manures at any time.

They should have a proper nutrient management plan, including “an assessment of the crop nutrient requirement for each cultivated land parcel”.

This should be informed by using the AHDB’s RB209 guide, or approved farm software, or a Facts-qualified agronomist.

The plans should also include soil sampling and analysis, and the slurry/manure being spread should also be nutrient tested.

“Land managers must plan to avoid significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution,” says the guidance.

“They must not plan to apply more nitrogen than the soil and crop need on that land.”

Reaction

The NFU has welcomed this more conciliatory approach.

“The NFU has always said that farmers and their advisers are best placed to make decisions around nutrient management planning, based on a site-specific risk assessment,” said NFU vice-president Rachel Hallos.

“We are pleased to see these changes recognised in the updated guidance.

“The Environment Agency’s continued advice-led approach before taking enforcement action will also be critical, and we will work with them to ensure this is achieved on farm,” she added.

Niab agronomist Patrick Stephenson said that, while farmers would welcome the fact there was no ban on autumn muckspreading, there was certainly an increased emphasis on justification.

He explained that, while requirements for things such as soil and muck analysis were mentioned in the previous guidance, they were not spelled out so specifically.

“It previously used words like you ‘should’ do this or that, whereas now it says you ‘must’ do it.”

The fact the new guidance was still silent on the issue of meeting a crop’s “immediate” nutrient need was significant, said Mr Stephenson.

“They have conceded that part of it,” he said.

However, this still left much to the discretion of individual inspectors.

‘Crosshairs’

“My understanding is that the EA will give you one strike – you won’t get prosecuted unless it is a major incident – but after that, you are in their crosshairs,” said Mr Stephenson.

Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said he welcomed the greater clarification in the guidance and agreed that the wording provided a bit of “wiggle room” for interpretation.

But he anticipated that EA inspectors would require much greater justification for muckspreading in future, and this would “narrow the window” for manure and slurry application, challenging the industry to find ways of increasing winter storage.

Ms Hallos said that farmers recognised the need for better water, but called for government assistance in terms of funding for slurry storage and a more “enabling” planning system.