MANY farmers face business-changing or business-damaging costs from proposed changes to slurry and silage regulations.

That was the message that rung out from the 120 farmers who tuned in to discuss the proposed changes during last week's NFU Scotland webinar on the subject.

The proposed changes cover the storage and application of silage, slurry, and anaerobic digestate, and are currently being consulted upon by the Scottish Government. Union members were encouraged to voice their opinions and help inform its collated response to that consultation.

Describing the potential impact of the proposals, director of policy Jonnie Hall said: “This is a significant set of proposals from the Scottish Government with the potential for major impacts on many agricultural businesses – especially dairy and more intensive beef units outside of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones.

“It goes without saying that all farm businesses can and should play their part in helping meet climate change challenges and safeguarding our water environment. The storage and application of slurry typifies the challenge – but that challenge cannot be met by a purely regulatory approach which will do little to foster awareness and best practice and has the potential to impose damaging costs,” he warned.

“If it is in the public interest, let alone the provision of public goods, then it should not be at private cost," insisted Mr Hall. "Instead, all farm businesses must be provided with insight and options, via the right advice and support, if the desired outcomes are to be realised. As we all endeavour to move to more sustainable farming systems in Scotland, as well as setting baseline standards, the Scottish Government has to enable all farm types and sizes to invest – both in required capital and best practice.

“The real value of last night’s meeting was hearing first-hand the enormity of the potential impacts for different farming businesses across the country – something that is completely absent from the consultation itself," he added. "It is clear that many face business-changing or business-damaging costs with no clear route to recoup. The collateral damage for some parts of rural Scotland is likely to outweigh any benefits the proposals might bring.”