Back Issues

Written By Steve Ridsdale

Combinable crop direct drillers have found ways to cut establishment costs, whilst at the same time aiming to increase the resilience and productive capacity of their soils. At the other end of the production cycle, comes our output in the form of crop sales. We want to be competitive producers and competitive sellers.

Combinable crop direct drillers have found ways to cut establishment costs, whilst at the same time aiming to increase the resilience and productive capacity of their soils. At the other end of the production cycle, comes our output in the form of crop sales. We want to be competitive producers and competitive sellers. What would you think, if I told you it was easier for competitor imports to access our UK markets than it is for ourselves. That would be crazy, wouldn’t it? Well, that’s the exact situation we find ourselves in. Let me explain…

Most animal feed mills are members of an assurance scheme. It’s called the Universal Feed Assurance Scheme (UFAS), and it’s administered by the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC). Imported combinable crops are not required by the AIC to have any farm level audited assurance when supplying to a UFAS accredited animal feed mill. This contrasts with AIC’s insistence that UK and Eire growers adhere to farm level assurance protocols such as Red Tractor (RT) or Scottish Quality Crops (SQC), and so UK growers consequently face an extra layer of burden and cost to access their own home markets. It makes us less competitive in the marketplace.

How Do These Imports Become Assured?

These imports are used to feed RT assured livestock, so presumably RT and AIC are content with the imported grain safety, and consider it to be in no way harmful, or a food safety issue to our farmed livestock. AIC welcome these imports into the feed chain by virtue of either pesticide residue testing, or a pesticide declaration confirming grains were only grown using EU licensed pesticides. The notable difference is that AIC have NO requirement for these imports to have any farm level assurance at all. Think about that when you’re next paying your RT assurance invoice, writing down when you cleaned your grain bucket, or writing down the exact time and date you put some rat poison down.

These imports, having been grown in countries where growers have access to pesticides not licensed in the UK, pesticide testing is a reasonable safety check to undertake. One might, however, question the usefulness of sampling grain after it has been blended at central storage and then onboarded to a boat.

What Could An Equivalent System Of Assuring Grain Look Like For UK Producers?

Turning our attention to home grown grain, we only have access to UK approved pesticides, so it follows that pesticide residue testing is unnecessary, and that the pesticide declaration method is more appropriate. Domestic legislation requires crop sprayers to be NSTS tested, and operators must have PA1/2 certificates of competence. Local authorities check we are compliant in having written HACCP procedural records for grain drying and storage, and are also at liberty to inspect our pesticide records. These legislative requirements provide a risk based assurance that UK grain has a safe pesticide adherence. Government are content with this high standard of legislative framework and the food safety status this provides to our grain, and ultimately to the consumer. We have some of the highest standards in the world.

Our AIC approved TASCC merchants visit, and are welcomed at any time, 365 days a year, to take samples from our grain stores, check the hygiene procedures of our stores, inspect our machinery and visit our fields. If they’re not happy, they won’t purchase It’s a self-policing system. In comparison, we should be mindful that AIC do not stipulate any on-farm checks of imports. Those imported grains are only entered into the assured food chain by the shipper, using the pesticide test or pesticide declaration methods.

It therefore follows, that a simple pesticide self-declaration on the grain passport provides UK grain with a much more comprehensive standard of assurance to that of imported grain, and so should be an accepted method for UK gain to enter a UK feed mill. This would give us equivalence to our competitors.

Farmers Are Angry

UK growers have not received any logical explanation as to why UK we can’t have the same trading terms as imports. Rather, we’re told that in order to have access to UK feed mill markets, we must continue with farm level assurance from schemes such as Red Tractor or Scottish Quality Crops. A quick glance at the SQC website shows that AIC are one of 8 members in the ownership structure at SQC. Click over to the RT website, and we learn that the company guarantors of AFS (the parent of RT) include the NFU, AHDB, NFU Scotland and Ulster Farmers’ Union. We also learn that AIC have representatives on the RT Crops Board.

NFU and AHDB

These associations must raise questions over conflicts of interest. We’ve seen our farming unions and AHDB support RT, and it’s resulted in a situation whereby it’s more difficult for UK producers to access the feed mill markets than it is for imports. Policies need rethinking, and it needs to happen quickly. Farmers are disappointed and perplexed. Our representatives and statutory development board need to think carefully about who they are working for, or risk losing the support of the farmers who fund them. AHDB must work to ensure levy payers have, at a minimum, equal market access opportunities to competing imports, and our farming unions must help facilitate this. Questions need answering as to how anyone could have thought supporting the positioning of assurance companies, and the resultant market access anomaly, could ever have been a good idea

Given that most other grain exporting countries did not have any farm level grain assurance schemes, it was an obvious and forseeable consequence that UK producers would be saddled with extra assurance cost burdens (in comparison to imports) for supply to our feed mills. Quire clearly, these policies were going to create a situation by which it would make market access more difficult for UK producers, and easier for competitors. RT and AIC also have a responsibility here. They have responsibility to our home industry from whom they make a living, and they need to consider the position in which they have now placed our AHDB and NFU. Farmers have resigned their NFU membership over this issue, and with talk of a ballot on the future of our AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds sector, we want to be in a position where farmers can give whole hearted support to these organisations who are designed to help us.

We now need solutions. NFU and AHDB must no longer support a situation by which market access is more costly for UK growers. We must have, at a minimum, equivalent market access. Anything less is a failure by our NFU and AHDB.

Free Market Economy

Currently, feed mills and farmers are shackled to the AIC rules, and unable to choose different standards for themselves. There should be nothing in the way of a free market economy. It’s a huge disposition on the marketplace, and prevents the market trading naturally, commercially and in a free manner. Government decide upon our food safety regulations, not private selfappointed assurance companies who benefit from their own industry rules.

Double standards don’t work, they’re untenable. We need one common standard no more onerous than imports enjoy, with optional schemes to serve end users who require audited assurance.

Schemes such as RT and SQC can happily co-exist with the pesticide declaration method of assuring grain. There should be nothing stopping us having two voluntary standards for UK grain, working in tandem to serve different aspects of the marketplace. A feed barley grower should be able to access feed mill markets using the pesticide declaration method. The farmer should have choice, and the mill should have choice. A milling wheat or malting producer may choose to be RT assured. Some millers or biscuit manufacturers may insist on RT, others might not. It would be market led and premium led. The industry is grown up, it doesn’t need to be told what standard it should trade, particularly when the UK and imported grain is then blended into the same product.

RT has often been criticised for failing to produce a price premium. RT would need to work harder to provide a premium over farmers’ compliance costs. That’s no bad thing. Innovation and excellence come from competition, competition that RT is currently lacking.

Our producers should be afforded a level playing field, and RT, AIC, NFU and our AHDB, should work to achieve this.

I’d urge growers to speak to their NFU representative or AHDB contact.

Our own industry leaders have got us into this crazy mess. Now it’s time for them to work to repair the damage.

Written by Jon Williams from www.thesoilexpert.co.uk

An old adage of farming practice we need to pay attention to with our management of our slurry and manures for the benefit of the environment and our farm business.

With increasing attention focused on the environmental impact of food production methods currently in practice and the industrialisation of agriculture via the dependency on this development from synthetic fertilisers and chemical cocktails which can be considered as a chemical experiment, it is becoming increasingly clear that this form of food production is resulting in depleted soils, of soil life and nutrients with the result that the food produced no longer has the nutrient density or health benefits gained from a more balanced living soil system more in harmony with nature.

The current industrial model of agriculture must take a new more holistic approach considering not just the short term gains but also the longer-term impacts of such methods of production and one way to assist in this shift is to change our attitude toward slurry and manure, transforming this from a waste product into one that is an asset. The good news is that Governments are prepared to back this with financial incentives under the heading of providing “Public Goods”

The science of slurry and manure

To achieve the best outcome an understanding of the science of slurry and manure is useful and this combined with it’s impact on the soil when it is applied in different forms such as anaerobic or aerobic or fermented products. 

Slurry

Anaerobic digestate or slurry from a crusted or covered pit will be anaerobic and will have more volatile gases present such as Nitrous oxide, Methane, Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulphide and to overcome the immediate environmental impact of these gases it is suggested that they must be injected into the soil to reduce the impact of these gasses in the air, some of which are being blamed for creating particulate matter damaging Human lung tissue. All injection of slurries must be done when soil conditions are such that they are not holding water which will result in further damage to soil life and also soil structure.

However there is a more serious long term implication when such a product is injected into soil. Being anaerobic the pH of Digestate in particular is above 8 (ref Wrap digestate and compost use in agriculture Feb 2016) and so the product is caustic and is detrimental to soil life as it burns worms which happen to like to live in an aerobic soil and so they take a hit but can get out of the way when injected in slots.

The overall impact is that the soil is flooded with available ammonia and there is a flush of Nitrogen similar to when large amounts of fertiliser Nitrogen is applied and Rothamstead have just released the results of 40 years of research showing that the more available N that is applied to soil the more it distorts the genetic expression of soil organisms. (ref Andrew W Neal) So the overall impact of anaerobic digestate or slurry from a crusted and untreated or covered store has a negative effect resulting in the soil becoming more dependent on brought in synthetic nutrients as most of the Nitrogen is immediately available.

One alternative to this is to render the slurry to being aerobic and this can be achieved in several ways with huge benefits to the environment as well as to soil life. Firstly let’s look at what is the product we are dealing with and to understand how to manage it for our best advantage and to have the least impact on the environment. Slurry generally has a low fibre content and a high Nitrogen to Carbon ratio and is bacteria dominated with little fungi present and so in that respect it is an imbalanced product as far as the soil is concerned, however we have to make the best use of it.

The nitrogen content can vary according to the amount of protein fed to the stock producing the slurry because livestock are fairly inefficient at converting protein into meat or milk and so the higher the protein diet can produce a higher value slurry and it is therefore more worthwhile to invest in stabilising the nutrients held within that particular slurry.

One of the amendments that can be used to retain this value in our slurry is to render the product to become aerobic and this can be achieved in several ways, such as a mechanical bubbler, or by adding a catalyst such as Plocher and the result of these amendments is that as the slurry becomes aerobic the pH is dropped towards neutral with the aerobic bugs creating Carbonic acid which in turn stabilises Ammonium which becomes available for plant use in a similar form as comes from fertiliser. However not all the nitrogen is in this available form as there is a portion that is retained as Organic Nitrogen as the slurry has become a stable product and is now not breaking down further as it would in a digester. The organic Nitrogen is slowly released during the months following the application and so there is not the flush of available Nitrogen as seen from Anaerobic digestate and the plant is fed in a more natural way which can have the effect of reducing the incidence of disease and better performance if conditions become dry.

Other methods of lowering the pH of slurry are being carried out with the addition of sulphuric acid which does stabilise the nutrients via the same process of lowering the pH of the slurry but does not render the slurry to being aerobic and of course there is the health and safety issues of handling and applying such a product and its corrosive nature damaging concrete slats and retaining wall.

However there is a relatively new method of lowering the pH from about 7.2 to 6.8 which is done by the addition of” Effective Microorganisms” which encourages a fermentation of the slurry. This concept was developed in Japan by a Professor Higa in 1982 who coined the term “Effective Micro-organisms” when he discovered the mix of 80 microbes which work synergistically to ferment organic matter retaining the nutrients in a stable form. The fermentation actually pre-digests the organic matter making it immediately available to the soil organisms and thus to the plants. 

This product can be used with a covered slurry pit which I understand is the proposal for management of slurry stores in England. E.M. is based on the principal of anaerobic fermentation and by lowering the pH, can retain the value of the nutrients within the slurry which when applied to the soil is already in a more mature form which allows the soil organisms to utilise it without using a lot of energy and there is no loss of volatile gasses into the environment. This treated product might no longer mean that you will be required to inject it into the soil which reduces the fossil fuel use of slurry application as well as wear and tare on machinery.

Manure Management.

Having a different Nitrogen to Carbon ratio this product has a higher fibre level and therefore is more conducive to the establishment of a more balanced product enhancing both the Bacteria and the Fungi within the product and consequently when applied to the soil creating a more balanced soil. Currently on most farms this product is not amended in any way and under the proposed new legislation may need to be incorporated into soil with 24 hours of application. This of itself has an environmental impact by the very nature of ploughing it in there will be a further release of CO2 into the atmosphere but the aim of this protocol I suggest is to reduce the ammonia going off into the environment thus lowering its potential impact on Human health.

So from this we can assume that untreated manure releases volatile gasses including Ammonia and that there is considerable potential benefit in stabilising those nutrients. Most farms still leave manure in a heap outdoors and un covered releasing volatile gasses and allowing nutrient run-off, and even if an element of aerobic composting is carried out there is a further release of CO2 into the atmosphere with considerable losses. Therefore the way we currently manage manure needs to be considered.

These issues can all be dealt with by treating the manure with Effective Micro-organisms, known as Bokashi, which again ferments the manure stabilising the valuable nutrients including the ammonia and so the need for ploughing after application will not be necessary and manure application can be carried out on Min -tilled soils which will have multiple environmental benefits, retaining carbon as well as enhancing soil life and crop performance.

The product can be applied to the manure as it builds up in the sheds layering it by spraying it on the fresh bedding when added and the animals will tread it in creating an anaerobic bed but stabilising the Ammonia reducing it’s potential impact on animals within the sheds. Alternatively the sheds can be emptied and as the pile builds up the product can be applied in layers and then covered with a silage sheet for the fermentation to take place which is completed within 6 to 8 weeks leaving a mature product which will be soon converted into soil as it is quickly utilised by the soil life. This having a further benefit in feeding the soil Micro-Biome with a balanced product having both beneficial bacteria and fungi present and so the soil becomes less reliant for cropping with synthetic fertilisers and plants are less stressed with the potential of reduced disease.

An added benefit is having more product to spread on the land because the losses are dramatically reduced with no Co2 going off into the atmosphere during the process of maturation and there is more carbon entering the soil thus enhancing the nutrient and water holding capacity of the soil as well as achieving greater Carbon sequestration, a “Public Good.”

The micro-organisms in Bokashi can be considered as the new meaning of culture in the word agriculture and is already used by 75% of all Dutch farmers and I see no reason why it cannot achieve similar levels of use here in the UK. So a mind shift in thinking and a new attitude towards slurry and manure can result is a win, win situation both for the environment and the farmer.

Available from Agriton Ltd.