Scottish Government

Chapter 4 - Closed Periods

This chapter is divided into 3 sections. The first section concerns responses on general issues concerning the proposed closed periods, options 1 and 2, and alternative proposals. The second section deals with whether closed periods should vary according to the differing rainfall levels in each NVZ. The third section concerns the removal of the requirement to give notice regarding chemical N fertiliser applications during the closed period.

Section 4.1 - General Issues Concerning the Proposed Closed Periods, Options 1 and 2, and Alternative Proposals

In this first section, views and comments were sought on:

• general comments on extending the closed periods for certain organic fertilisers
• Whether the closed periods should apply to all soil types
• comments on Option 1 - closed periods for organic matter high in available N, with distinctions between soil types and the lengths of closed period for different crops
• comments on Option 2 - closed periods which would apply to all soil types for organic matter high in available N
• views on ending the closed period for organic matter high in available N after 15 January for land which in the farm risk assessment is identified as being of low risk of run-off.
• views on any organic waste that should be excluded from the closed period.
• Whether the closed periods should apply to other organic matter high in available N ( e.g. slurry from livestock markets, blood from abattoirs or poultry preparation plants)

Responses received to first bullet point totalled 135 including 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses received to second bullet point totalled 86 including 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses received to third bullet point totalled 117 including 22 signed standard letter-1 and 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses received to forth bullet point totalled 100 including, 63 signed standard letter-2 and 4 signed standard letter- 4

Responses received to fifth bullet point totalled 79 including, 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses received to sixth bullet point totalled 88 including, 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses received to seventh bullet point totalled 87 including 63 signed standard letter-2

Responses included:
13 from agricultural organisations
6 from environmental organisations
2 from other public body/organisation

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

General comments

The general comments centred on the issues of the scientific evidence for the proposed changes, the practical difficulties for businesses and crop management, further clarification and alternative proposals.

Scientific evidence

• A number of representative organisations agreed that the computer modelled predictions (given in Annex B of the full consultation) were indicative of the need for extending the closed periods for all soil types and several respondents stated that they were prepared to have extended closed periods where it was proved scientifically to be essential.
• Of those questioning the scientific evidence presented, most thought that recent nitrate data for surface waters did not justify the need to extend the closed period. Some, including SRPBA, considered closed periods should be based on field trials of specific land use and proven risk to the water environment. In particular SRPBA argued that the closed period should only apply to soils and sub-soils where there was a demonstrable risk of leaching. It thought that little environmental benefit would be derived from extending the closed period to all soils, though this would have a significant impact on farm businesses.
• On the issue of run-off, several considered that this would be controlled more effectively by means of the proposed risk assessment map rather than by closed periods. One representative group suggested that, because it was not in farmers' interest to spread slurry when conditions where not suitable, it should be left to farmers' discretion to judge the land's carrying capacity and run-off potential. One respondent questioned the lack of correlation between water quality measurements for run-off in winter months and whether sufficient weight had been given to the fact that soil moisture content was not continuously at its maximum throughout the winter.

Practical difficulties

• Many respondents and representative organisations raised concerns about the practical difficulties associated with longer closed periods in terms of the:
• • increased pressure to out-winter stock,
  • increased pressures to export manures from farms with increased risk to road users and to the environment
  • increased spreading in the spring that would lead to less efficient nitrogen use by crops
  • larger quantities of ammonia released to the atmosphere,
  • application of slurry to crops intended for human consumption,
  • wheel damage, compaction of land and risk of more general environmental damage due to the concentrated periods of manure application particularly if these were followed by wet weather
  • the combination of longer closed periods with restrictions on all soil types, and
  • the logistical difficulties for labour and machinery resources in applying manure between crop cycles
• Some were concerned that the increased closed periods would discourage use of organic manures in favour of chemical fertilisers. Scottish Water advised that extended the closed periods would impact on them if more liquid digested sewage sludge had to be diverted to caked sludge production

Clarification /other suggestions

• Clarification was sought on whether the proposals would conflict with GAEC responsibilities, on the risks of leaching where heavy rain followed spreading of seed bed fertilisers to spring crops and of N losses from ploughing up clover rich grass fields. One environmental body commented that the statement that 'risk of run-off is reduced where manure is incorporated' needed to be qualified to take account of increased risk where incorporation is close to drains
• Some questioned the validity of a calendar based closed periods that did not take account of the variability of weather and soil conditions. One representative group suggested soil temperature would be a better mechanism for determining non-spreading days, others proposed that Tsum should be adapted as the basis for identifying the end of the closed period, or that assessment and management of risk was achieved by the use of N recovery rates.
• A couple of respondent felt that closed periods for inorganic and organic fertilisers should not be different.

• Standard letter 2 respondents proposed that the closed period requirements were phased in, starting with a maximum of 3 months and only extended if a marked difference was not observed across the monitoring sites.
• A grant scheme to encourage fertiliser applications in the spring was proposed.

• A few questioned whether due to changes in climate (warmer wetter winters) the closed periods needed to be extended. Others argued for keeping the present rules, believing that they had lead to a more responsible attitude to use of organic manures (and increased costs in organic fertilisers had led to greater use of fym), and that, together with PPC rules, were sufficient in reducing nitrate losses

Proposal that Closed Periods apply to all soils

• Some of the environmental bodies commented that this proposal was justified, and might reduce the burden of trying to determine the prevailing soil type across each field.
• Responses from the farming sector and their representative bodies sought more Scottish (field) data to justify the inclusion of other soils in the closed periods. Concerns were raised about the effects both in terms of the effects on businesses, and on the environment in terms of increased risks of pollution at the end of the closed periods on land where previously slurry had been applied throughout the winter under good weather conditions

Option 1 - Closed Periods for organic matter high in available N, with distinctions between soil types and the lengths of closed period for different crops

• Some 34 respondents indicated a preference for the Option 1 closed periods compared to the option 2 because it provided greater flexibility, better farm practice and acknowledged the different circumstances affecting leaching. However sought a modification to the proposals that would enable incorporation within 14 day (the period advised in the PEPFAA code) rather than the specified 24 hours. Scottish Agronomy adding that the requirement for incorporation within 24 hours would be at odds with the Soil Framework Directive and could potentially increase the risk of leaching/erosion through slumping and settling of soils as a result of early ploughing.
• 74 respondents were not in favour of the proposal considering that it was too extensive and that the scientific evidence did not indicate any requirement for a closed period after 15 December (15 Nov for grassland). A few proposed that the Risk Assessment Map was used as the basis for determining the risk of spreading after 15 December. Scottish Wildlife Trust and one other respondent were concerned that this option would be difficult to apply control and enforce

Option 2 - closed periods which would apply to all soil types for organic matter high in available N

• While 8 respondents commented in favour of the simpler Option 2, 80 opposed it. Those favouring it did so for reasons of its simplicity, ease of understanding and enforcement, and as a precautionary approach against field scale soil variability soil.
• Those disagreeing with the proposal considered that while simpler, the closed period for this option was unjustifiably long and did not reflect the scientific data. There were concerns it did not take account of the later growing season in the East of Scotland, and that it would not allow sufficient time to apply organic manure and would therefore have serious impact on the viability of winter cropping enterprises;

Alternative dates for Closed Periods

• Over three quarters of those who commented on the closed periods suggested alternative dates. Of these, the majority offered different dates according to soil type, and for longer periods than the current one month. Most argued for a little flexibility at either end of the closed periods to take account of local weather, sowing or harvesting conditions. Very few provided any additional scientific data in support of their proposals or which demonstrated environmental benefit. However several, including SRPBA and standard letter-2 respondents, argued the case for ending the closed period for grassland and autumn grown crops in December as the risk of leaching was minimal by then and because run-off, being a risk throughout the year, was better addressed by GAEC and the PEPFAA Code measures.
• A number of respondents commented on the use of the proposed risk assessment maps to modify the closed periods and allow advantage to be taken of suitable but unpredictable weather conditions. In particular, SAC proposed that the closed periods should take into account land identified as 'moderate risk' in the farm risk assessment and where no recent artificial drainage existed. It also suggested the gradual introduction of a more flexible system, based on local conditions of rainfall, soil type and temperature, would increase farmer acceptance and compliance rather than fixed dates.

Proposal to end the closed period after 15 January for land identified in the farm risk assessment as being of low run-off risk

• NFUS did not agree with this proposal and argued that, if substantiated, low risk designation should result in an earlier end to the closed periods;
• several others considered that this provision was not required, commenting that the proposed farm risk assessment would identify locations where there were heightened risks of run-off for land which was steeply sloping, flood prone or adjacent to water courses;
• SEPA supported this measure, and other individuals liked the idea of using the farm risk assessment to manage low risk of run-off commenting that it would reduce the need for any new proposals/ any further restrictions in the 'shoulder period', which should otherwise be issued as guidelines.

Organic wastes to be excluded from closed periods

• In addition to FYM and dried sewage sludge, which are not high in available N, respondents offered a wide range of products to be excluded from the closed period - paper crumble, enhanced treated sewage sludge (cambi cake), by-product slurries from biogas plants used to generate 'green energy', silage effluent, raw pot ale and spent lees from distilleries; water washing from poultry sheds and dirty water/parlour washings (where they was not collected with slurry).
• The Compost Association commented that there was no reference in the consultation to compost but that it should be excluded from the closed periods because it was low nitrogen available fertiliser similar to fym. NFUS supported this proposal;
• SNH consider that more scientific evidence was needed before other organic wastes were exempted.

Closed period to apply to other organic matter high in available N ( e.g. slurry from livestock markets, and blood from abattoirs or poultry preparation plants

• While there was overwhelming agreement to this proposal, 2 organisations cautioned that, to avoid confusion, the term 'organic matter high in available N' needed to be defined and clear guidance provided. The British Egg Industry Council hoped the inclusion of (poultry) layer manure might be reviewed in 2-3 years to take account of low P and N content and potential improvements arising from the PPC process;
• SEPA proposed that the closed periods should apply to some other non-agricultural materials used as fertiliser as well as to anaerobically digested liquid waste and silage effluent;

Section 4.2 - Varying the Closed Periods According to Differing Rainfall Levels

There were 86 responses, including, 63 from the signed standard letter-2 to this question on whether the closed periods should vary according to the differing rainfall levels in each NVZ

Responses included:
3 from agricultural organisations
3 from environmental organisations

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

• whilst acknowledging variation in rainfall patterns across Scotland, respondents were concerned that subdividing the closed periods for the NVZs according to weather patterns would cause confusion, be unnecessarily complicated and would decentralise the system. Nevertheless, Lower Nithsdale NVZ was viewed by some as a possible exceptional case.
• Although few agreed with the proposal to vary closed periods in line with rainfall patterns, there were comments, as for example, those of SRPBA, that the different climate, hydrology and farming systems in the 4 NVZs warranted specific measures to meet the requirements of the Directive. It raised concerns that a single Action Programme applying to all the NVZs, went against the principles established in the regionally differentiated Land Management Contracts. Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd added that the alternative common approach for all soils and all climatic conditions was too crude and was likely to damage the most profitable and proficient sectors of the industry if measures were not better targeted. This view was supported by others, notably in the east coast areas where average rainfall is lower.

Section 4.3 - Notice of Chemical N Fertiliser Applications during the Closed Period

There was a total of 93 responses, including 63 signed standard letter-2, to this proposal to remove the requirement to give notice of chemical N fertiliser applications during the closed period.

Responses included:
6 from agricultural organisations
3 from environmental organisations

Table - Summary of responses

Summary of key points

• While there was general support for this proposal (particularly as a means of reducing bureaucracy), several took the opportunity to comment on the length of the closed period for inorganic fertilisers.
• NFUS considered the closed period for inorganic fertilisers should be delayed to October to allow applications to be made to oil seed rape. Others made similar comments concerning cereals and other crops and on the need for flexibility depending on the weather conditions and on agronomists' advice. Scottish Quality Cereals proposing that October applications should permitted on condition that a letter of justification, based on research findings, were provided. It was argued that there should be flexibility on applying chemical fertiliser earlier in the spring -eg when T-Sum 200⁶ was reached in the second week of February.
• SEPA considered that there was no need to change the current closed period for inorganic fertilisers. Additionally, it recommended that there should be a substantial decrease in use of N applied to winter crops and that the Executive should ensure the fertiliser supply trade provided suitable products to Scottish farmers for winter cereals (ie phosphorus and potassium compound, not nitrogen). It commented that ADAS and SAC research showed that the response of winter cereals to autumn N was rare but that it carried a high risk of leaching. It quoted the British Survey of Fertiliser Practice Report which estimated that, in 2005, 86% winter oil seed rape, 51% of winter barley and 16% winter wheat received autumn or winter applications of inorganic nitrogen compared to 38% for winter oil seed rape, 2% for barley and 3% for wheat in England and Wales. SNH also commented that oil seed rape did not usually need any application of nitrogen in the autumn.
• A tax levied on nitrogen chemical fertiliser and nitrogen compound chemical fertiliser was proposed by one respondent, coupled with greater encouragement to establish clovers in permanent grassland, the use of oats rather than barley feed for cattle and the growing of grass for silage that has not been given nitrogen fertiliser.
• Others raised concerns about the need to
• • permit the application of chemical fertilisers to vegetable crops (leeks, sprouts) after September or to early cover crop eg carrots in January:
  • keep the industry informed about research on autumn nitrogen applications and
  • discuss any alterations to guidance with the arable sector and for the decisions to be made available by the end of the July preceding the autumn in order to allow for amendments to fertiliser purchases
  • continue to keep records of application and organic justification for its use.