Nitrate repercussions for someone receiving no payments?

Donald Trump

Are there any repercussions for someone going over the limit for nitrates if they don't receive any payments?


Say the fella up the road is a hobby farmer with 10 acres and I plaster his ground with excess dung or slurry (when allowed).



It might be a bit more difficult to get the export forms sorted if they didn't have a herd number, but could they actually do anything if I put more than the 170kg on it?

Birdnuts

Donald Trump wrote: »

Are there any repercussions for someone going over the limit for nitrates if they don't receive any payments?


Say the fella up the road is a hobby farmer with 10 acres and I plaster his ground with excess dung or slurry (when allowed).



It might be a bit more difficult to get the export forms sorted if they didn't have a herd number, but could they actually do anything if I put more than the 170kg on it?

The CC,EPA, Fisheries etc. will be all over him when it starts hitting surrounding water bodies, public supplies etc. The EU water Directive applies to everyone, farmers, sfp or not!! Big fines and other sanctions now for those playing Russian Roulette in this area

Donald Trump

Birdnuts wrote: »

The CC,EPA, Fisheries etc. will be all over him when it starts hitting surrounding water bodies, public supplies etc. The EU water Directive applies to everyone, farmers, sfp or not!! Big fines and other sanctions now for those playing Russian Roulette in this area

Yes, of course. If there is pollution. But that stands whether you are under or over the 170kg. You could spread one load right beside a stream and a big shower wash it in and you'd be rightly done for it.



But there are no sanctions for the average joe just for going over a certain level from what I understand.


Someone can put 300kg of nitrogen out instead of 170kg and once there is no run off or pollution, there are no penalties.

Birdnuts

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes, of course. If there is pollution. But that stands whether you are under or over the 170kg. You could spread one load right beside a stream and a big shower wash it in and you'd be rightly done for it.



But there are no sanctions for the average joe just for going over a certain level from what I understand.


Someone can put 300kg of nitrogen out instead of 170kg and once there is no run off or pollution, there are no penalties.

Very hard to ensure that given our climate - toxic algal blooms etc. in nearby water bodies are caused by slow but steady build up of excessive nutrient applications on nearby farmland etc. eventually leading to water quality issues that impact fisheries, water supplies etc. All of which are now being targeted by the relevant government bodies overseeing the aims of the water directive I mentioned earlier

wrangler

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes, of course. If there is pollution. But that stands whether you are under or over the 170kg. You could spread one load right beside a stream and a big shower wash it in and you'd be rightly done for it.



But there are no sanctions for the average joe just for going over a certain level from what I understand.


Someone can put 300kg of nitrogen out instead of 170kg and once there is no run off or pollution, there are no penalties.

The 170kg is related to stocking rate, a ewe for instance is counted as 13kg cow 85kg etc. Any farmer can put all their dung and slurry on one acre if he likes and get away with it as long as
1, he doesn't record it as such, and
2, there is no run off.
If a farmer has sent in maps to the Dept. totalling 100ha and and their records flag his stocking total as 20000kg N/ha, their computers will immediately flag it as being overstocked, the 170 figure has all to do with stocking rate.

Donald Trump

wrangler wrote: »

The 170kg is related to stocking rate, a ewe for instance is counted as 13kg cow 85kg etc. Any farmer can put all their dung and slurry on one acre if he likes and get away with it as long as
1, he doesn't record it as such, and
2, there is no run off.
If a farmer has sent in maps to the Dept. totalling 100ha and and their records flag his stocking total as 20000kg N/ha, their computers will immediately flag it as being overstocked, the 170 figure has all to do with stocking rate.

My question is whether there are any repercussions (assuming no run-off or polluting) for a person who receives no payments. I don't think that there are

yosemitesam1

Donald Trump wrote: »

My question is whether there are any repercussions (assuming no run-off or polluting) for a person who receives no payments. I don't think that there are

You'd be looking to export slurry to the neighbor to bring yourself under 170?
You can hardly export it on paper to someone gone over 170, so what'd be the point

Donald Trump

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

You'd be looking to export slurry to the neighbor to bring yourself under 170?
You can hardly export it on paper to someone gone over 170, so what'd be the point

It was hypothetical question.




What if second person did not receive any payments? I don't think there would be repercussions for them. Might be a hobby farmer, a developer with a landbank, some land rented out for 30 years that never established payments, a vegetable farmer that never got any subsidies.


It's not a worry for this year. More than enough out the gate but some fellas are cagey and hesitant to sign forms. Afraid of putting themselves over. (Also have a big problem with trying to rent land and obtain the maps. Plenty happy to rent you the ground for the year as long as they put it down as selling grass/silage on the flat or similar. Don't want to give you the maps in case it affects their entitlements. Sightly different matter but all contributes) So for next year, I'm thinking it would be better to find recipients who wouldn't be worried about signing the forms!

jaymla627

Donald Trump wrote: »

It was hypothetical question.




What if second person did not receive any payments? I don't think there would be repercussions for them. Might be a hobby farmer, a developer with a landbank, some land rented out for 30 years that never established payments, a vegetable farmer that never got any subsidies.


It's not a worry for this year. More than enough out the gate but some fellas are cagey and hesitant to sign forms. Afraid of putting themselves over. (Also have a big problem with trying to rent land and obtain the maps. Plenty happy to rent you the ground for the year as long as they put it down as selling grass/silage on the flat or similar. Don't want to give you the maps in case it affects their entitlements. Sightly different matter but all contributes) So for next year, I'm thinking it would be better to find recipients who wouldn't be worried about signing the forms!

I’ve breached the 170kgs/ha since 13 every year by a lot and haven’t had a inspection yet, don’t receive any sfp, it would be council dependent the local one here are useless and seriously incompetent, if you seen what a development of a golf course they approved and signed off on has done to the local waterways you’d be scratching your head

zetor 4911

Donald Trump wrote: »

Are there any repercussions for someone going over the limit for nitrates if they don't receive any payments?


Say the fella up the road is a hobby farmer with 10 acres and I plaster his ground with excess dung or slurry (when allowed).



It might be a bit more difficult to get the export forms sorted if they didn't have a herd number, but could they actually do anything if I put more than the 170kg on it?

If he submits a BPS application then the overstocking will be flagged.This overstocking can be as a result of his own stock or importing slurry. If he hasn't any payment from Dept then they can pass the issue onto the Council and they can take a prosecution. If no BPS submitted then it probably won't be flagged.

ganmo

the answer is no
as the 170 figure is defined by the nitrates directive

2. These measures will ensure that, for each farm or livestock unit, the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, including by the animals themselves, shall not exceed a specified amount per hectare.

The specified amount per hectare be the amount of manure containing 170 kg N.

the SI enforcing that states

Offences and related matters
26. (1) A person who contravenes a provision of Parts 2 to 5 and Schedule 5
of these Regulations, excluding Article 17(5), (6), (7), (10) and (11), is guilty of
an offence and shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a Class A fine or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 3 months or both or,
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €500,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine
and such imprisonment.

the only mentions of payments in the SI are in relation to payment of fines so the question would be who would be paying, the land owner or the manure generator

Donald Trump

ganmo wrote: »

the answer is no
as the 170 figure is defined by the nitrates directive

the SI enforcing that states


the only mentions of payments in the SI are in relation to payment of fines so the question would be who would be paying, the land owner or the manure generator

Interesting.



I am surprised the derogation isn't worded in there. It must be worded somewhere else.

Donald Trump

Can land with trees count towards your acreage for nitrates?

I'd assume not. But at the same time you could technically spread a bit between rows of trees (on good flat land now, not on a hill)

jaymla627

Donald Trump wrote: »

Can land with trees count towards your acreage for nitrates?

I'd assume not. But at the same time you could technically spread a bit between rows of trees (on good flat land now, not on a hill)

That’s defined as habitat, we had 8 acres of mature forestry that wasn’t allowed to be used for nitrates, have since cleared it and will be reclaimed this year but even when its restored to grassland it still would be possible to count towards nitrates

Donald Trump

jaymla627 wrote: »

That’s defined as habitat, we had 8 acres of mature forestry that wasn’t allowed to be used for nitrates, have since cleared it and will be reclaimed this year but even when its restored to grassland it still would be possible to count towards nitrates

Did you mean "still not be possible"?

As an aside, how did you get away with not having to replant it? Did you clear it before that rule came in or something? I thought it was more or less a blanket rule now that any trees cut down must be replaced.


I'm looking at a bit of land that has some grassland and some trees. Was also wondering how it would affect nitrates calculations if I bought it. So thanks for your answer. It was very helpful on that front.

jaymla627

Donald Trump wrote: »

Did you mean "still not be possible"?

As an aside, how did you get away with not having to replant it? Did you clear it before that rule came in or something? I thought it was more or less a blanket rule now that any trees cut down must be replaced.


I'm looking at a bit of land that has some grassland and some trees. Was also wondering how it would affect nitrates calculations if I bought it. So thanks for your answer. It was very helpful on that front.

Sorry meant not possible, it was hit with severe ash die-back and it had to be removed anyway, no grants are available to replant it, we have planted other ground since so possibly can transfer it around this way....
Your also allowed to remove 15m3 of wood for own use a year on farm also, which gives some leeway to clearing ground with sparse forestry

Donald Trump

jaymla627 wrote: »

Sorry meant not possible, it was hit with severe ash die-back and it had to be removed anyway, no grants are available to replant it, we have planted other ground since so possibly can transfer it around this way....
Your also allowed to remove 15m3 of wood for own use a year on farm also, which gives some leeway to clearing ground with sparse forestry

Interesting and useful information! I did not know that. Do you have to submit plans or anything for that? Or is there a fixed "conversion factor" they will allow to convert for area? Can you also do that in years when you are thinning?


How do you justify "sparse" too? What I mean is, say there are portions where a lot of trees died or have disappeared. So that your 15m does a long area. How do you prove there wasn't much there to begin with?


Would the answer to the above just be have a registered fella do up a plan and report?


Say for example a 15 year old 100m X 100m plot of trees. That 2.5 acres. You thin it out and remove rows 3 & 5. Could you then just work back over time taking out rows 1, 2, 4 under this 15 m^3 allowance?


Do you think it would be possible to get back an acre over time. Even say 10 years? Obviously it would depend on the volume and density of the trees, but is that something that is at least not ludicrous to suggest?

On the die-back aspect, if you had mixed trees - say ash and oak, and the ash had to be removed, was there a dispensation that you could just cut it all down and not have to replant? I thought that I read something about that but that it might not apply any more. When people did that, did they cut down the oak too?


Sorry. Probably more appropriate for the specific forum. But googling at around 0.4m per tree would mean a fella could cut down 37 or so trees a year! That 0.4 is for mature trees not thinned. I don;t know how reasonable it is
https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/timber-harvesting/first-thinning-of-conifer-forests/


To drag it back somewhat onto topic, could those 15m "personal use" reclaimed bit, over time be reverted back to use for nitrates etc? (Under current rules). I know you said that your bit wasn't but that was a big enough size relative to the 15m. I think from your answer that it would not be!



Edit. Just googled and found this and it says that the 15m^3 can't be taken from a "forest".
https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/forestry/farmers-now-need-a-licence-to-cut-down-trees-on-their-lands-but-there-are-exemptions-36673356.html
I'm assuming a stupid 2 acre block in the middle of a field counts as forest :-/

Pidae.m

I know of some of the very big cattle fellas(desler/feedlot) sold there entitlements but I'd guess you'd get plagued by the council, fisherys & forestry if the dept felt they couldn't nab you.