Water Usage in Agriculture and Horticulture Results

Transcription

Published 9 June 2011
Water Usage in Agriculture and Horticulture
Results from the Farm Business Survey 2009/10 and the Irrigation Survey 2010
The latest National Statistics produced by Defra on water usage in agriculture were released on 9
June 2011 according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. These are
sourced from the 2009/10 Farm Business Survey (which covers the 2009 harvest) and the 2010
Irrigation Survey. The results cover volumes and costs of water, irrigated areas of crops,
management practices undertaken and the reasons for doing these. Key results are given below.
Water usage and irrigation (tables 1 to 12)
• The total volume of water used in agriculture is 184 million m3. Drinking water for livestock
is the biggest form of water usage accounting for 41% of the total, followed closely by
irrigation (38%).
• In 2010 the irrigated area of outdoor crops and grass decreased by 28% compared to 2005
due to a reduction in the number of irrigators and wetter weather conditions. Recent
weather conditions in 2011 have been extremely dry. This suggests that the amount of
irrigation carried out this year may be much higher than in 2010. Figures for 2011 are not
reflected in this publication.
• Following the reduction in irrigated area the total volume of water used for irrigation also
decreased to 70 million m3 in 2010 compared with 93 million m3 in 2005.
• The most common method of irrigation is the hose reel which was used to irrigate 93% of
the total irrigated area in 2010.
Water sources (tables 13 to 24)
• Mains water is by far the commonest water source for farming (83% of farms) across all
activities.
• The predominant water sources for irrigation are surface water and ground water
accounting for 52% and 41% of the total volume of irrigation water respectively. This has
remained almost unchanged compared to 2005 and 2001.
• Grazing livestock farms and mixed farms are far more likely (60% and 46% respectively) to
use water from rivers/streams or springs than cropping and granivore farms (pigs and
poultry).The average unit cost of mains water is £1.17 per m3. The main variation in costs is
between River Basin catchments ranging from £0.95 per m3 in the South East river
catchment to £1.50 per m3 in the South West catchment.
• The total cost of water accounts for 1% of the total fixed costs.
Management practices and water quality (tables 25 to 43)
• Financial drivers are the main reason that farmers and growers carry out water
management practices. Over 50% of respondents stated this reason for employing more
efficient water methods for all water usages except spraying.
• The most common practices being conducted to reduce or prevent water pollution are
calibrating fertiliser spreaders (58%), reducing stocking rates when the soil are wet (57%)
and testing soil nutrients (55%).
Enquiries:
Katherine Merrett, Farm Business Survey Team. Tel: + 44 (0)20 7238 1162, email: [email protected]
Jennie Blackburn, Farming Statistics Team. Tel: +44 (0)1904 455332, email: [email protected].
A National Statistics publication. National Statistics are produced to high professional standards. They undergo
regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customer needs. They are produced free from any political
interference. For general enquiries about National Statistics, contact the National Statistics Public Enquiry Service: tel.
0845 601 3034; email:[email protected]. You can find National Statistics on the internet at www.statistics.gov.uk.
Background to surveys
The government’s new water strategy was published on the 7 February 2008 and highlights
the importance of water for both business and residential users. Because of our need to
adapt to climate change and other pressures such as changing land use, we need to find
ways of using water much more efficiently and sustainably. Whilst agriculture water use
amounts to only 1% of England’s water usage, there are great regional differences with, for
example in Eastern England, agriculture accounts for 16% of water usage. Agriculture is also
the single biggest cause of diffuse water pollution. This is unsurprising, as agriculture covers
70% of the land area in England and diffuse pollution, including loss of nutrients from
fertilisers and manure, is an unavoidable consequence of farming. Increases in nutrient
levels can result in eutrophication of streams, rivers and lakes, leading to reduced
biodiversity, as well as increased treatment costs for tap water.
There are two aspects therefore, to considering water as a resource; water quality and water
usage. Direct monitoring of water quality requires scientific monitoring by others but there is
scope for quantifying levels/changes in farm practices that contribute to water quality such
as fertiliser use (including organic waste), pesticide use, soil nutrient balances and farm
practices (e.g. erosion, tillage, cover crops, manure storage).
Within the agriculture industry water has a number of uses including irrigation, spraying,
drinking for livestock and washing down livestock buildings. Some farms abstract water from
rivers and boreholes whilst others rely solely on the mains supply. Livestock may have
access to rivers and streams for drinking which can be a source of pollution and river bank
erosion.
Significant data gaps exist in terms of supply and utilisation of water, economic cost of water
and water related activities and behavioral attitudes among farmers to water management.
The Farm Business Survey (FBS) was identified as a good research medium to collect this
information and additional questions were included in the 2009/10 campaign. By using the
FBS relationships between water usage and farm type, size, profitability and location can be
explored.
Data on irrigation of outdoor crops and grass was required to be collected as part of the
2010 Structure Survey to meet EC legislation. The 2010 Irrigation Survey was designed to
collect the required data but additional questions were added to the survey in an attempt to
fill data gaps on the subject.
2
Survey methodology
Farm Business Survey
The Farm Business Survey (FBS) represents all aspects of agriculture and covers all types
of farm1 in all regions of the country, and includes owner-occupied, tenanted and mixed
tenure farms. It is restricted to farms of size ½ Standard Labour Requirement (SLR)2 or
more. It is based on a sample survey of 1,900 farm businesses, carefully balanced so as to
represent all farm businesses in England with this minimum size. Results are weighted so as
to represent the whole population of farm businesses with a minimum size of ½ SLR.
In the 2009/10 survey, an additional module was included to collect information on water
usage from a sub-sample of farm businesses. The information collected covered volumes
and costs of water, management practices undertaken and the reasons for doing so. When
combined with other data from the survey this helps to explain farm businesses’ behaviour
and how this varies with parameters such as farm type and farm size.
Completion of the water module was voluntary with a response rate of 70% in 2009/10.
2010 Irrigation Survey
The Irrigation Survey was a paper form sent to 2,000 holdings. The holdings were selected
from those who indicated that they irrigate crops or grass when necessary on their June
Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture 2010 response.
The survey was sent out in October 2010 and asked for data from those holdings who had
irrigated outdoor crops and grass in 2010. The information collected in the survey covered
areas of outdoor crops and grass irrigated in 2010 and the volumes of water applied to each
crop, methods of irrigation used, water sources for irrigation water and irrigation scheduling
methods. The survey was compulsory and responses were received from 82% of those
sampled.
Data analysis
Farm Business Survey
Calibration weighting is applied to the Farm Business Survey. The initial weights of the FBS
are based on the inverse sampling fraction. These weights are then adjusted (calibration
weighting) so that they can produce unbiased estimators of a number of different target
variables. As mentioned, the water usage module was voluntary and achieved a response
rate of 70%; the results presented in this notice have been re-weighted to take account of
non-response using a method that preserves marginal totals for populations according to
robust farm type and farm size groups.
The results from the Farm Business Survey (FBS) relate to farms of size at least ½ Standard
Labour Requirement (SLR), a size considered sufficient to occupy a farmer half-time.
Around 55,000 of the 112,0003 farms in England are of size less than ½ SLR. They account
for only 4% of agricultural production and 9% of agricultural land area.
1
Except mushroom holdings and farms with no agricultural production.
A size considered sufficient to occupy a farmer half time under typical conditions for enterprises of average
size and performance; see ‘Definitions’ on: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/farmmanage/fbs/.
3
This figure is the approximate number of farms in England which fall within the “FBS farm types"
classification. This figure excludes those with zero Standard Gross Margin.
2
3
2010 Irrigation Survey
Values have been imputed for those holdings that did not respond to the Irrigation Survey
and expansion raising has been used to provide England level results to include those
holdings not sampled for the survey. The results produced are therefore representative of all
holdings in England who previously indicated that they irrigate.
Where possible results from the 2010 Irrigation Survey have been compared to results from
the 2001 and 2005 Irrigation Surveys carried out by Cranfield University.
Accuracy and reliability of the results
We have shown 95% confidence intervals against the figures. These show the range of
values that may apply to the figures. They mean that we are 95% confident that the true
value lies within this range either side of the estimate. They are based on the standard errors
(se) multiplied by 1.96 to give the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The standard errors
only give an indication of the sampling error. They do not reflect any other sources of survey
errors, such as non-response bias.
For the FBS, where figures are based on less than 5 observations these have been
suppressed to prevent disclosure and where they are based on less than 15 observations
these have been highlighted in the tables.
Confidence indicators
Tick based confidence indicators have been shown against the FBS results, ranging from 3
ticks (good) to 1 cross (poor). The ranges relate to the relative standard errors (RSE) as
follows:
⌧
RSE <2.5%
RSE 2.5–5%
RSE 5–10%
RSE 10‐20%
RSE >20%
Availability of results
Defra statistical notices can be viewed on the Food and Farming Statistics pages on the
Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/. This site also shows details of
future publications, with pre-announced dates.
4
Definitions
Economic performance band of farm businesses in the FBS
Economic performance for each farm is measured as the ratio between economic output
(mainly sales revenue) and inputs (costs). The higher the ratio, the higher the economic
efficiency and performance. Performance bands based on economic performance
percentiles as follows:
•
Low performers - farmers who took part in the water usage survey and were in the
bottom 25% of economic performers in the entire FBS sample
•
Medium performers -farmers who took part in the water usage survey and were in
the middle 50% of performers in the entire FBS sample
•
High performers - farmers who took part in the water usage survey and were in the
top 25% of performers in the entire FBS sample.
These are based on economic performance in 2009/10.
Water uses
•
Irrigation is the artificial application of water to land to assist in the production of
crops. For example supplying dry land with water by means of ditches, pipes,
streams etc
•
Spraying includes all water used in the application of pesticides, liquid fertilisers and
herbicides.
•
Wash down includes all water that is used for washing equipment, sanitizing animal
areas , slurry thinning
Water sources for irrigation
•
Surface water includes natural ponds and artificial dams as well as rivers, lakes and
other water courses.
•
Ground water includes wells, bore holes and springs.
5
Commentary on key results
The results in this notice are split into three sections covering (i) water usage and irrigation,
(ii) water sources and (iii) management practices and water quality (practices to reduce or
prevent pollution). The notice incorporates results from both the 2009/10 FBS and the 2010
Irrigation Survey. Detailed tables (1 to 43) referenced below can be found from page 21
onwards. An index of the tables can be found on page 19.
Water usage and irrigation
This section looks at the volumes of water used for various activities and management
practices that involve using water with particular focus given to irrigation.
Table 1 shows that the total volume of water used on farms in England was 184 million m3.
The largest total aggregate volume of water used is for drinking water for livestock (75
million m3); this is on average 15m3 per livestock unit per year (table A). Dairy farms are
using the largest amount of water in aggregate for both drinking water (34 million m3) and
wash down (11 million m3) compared to other livestock farms (table 2). Irrigation was the
next largest user of water in agriculture accounting for 38% of the total volume used (70
million m3). Approximately 2 million m3 of water is lost each year through leakages. Of the
total amount of water being used on farms only 3% of it is recycled.
Table A: Average water per hectare or livestock unit and total volume used
Average per hec/LU
Total volume
(m3 per hec/LU)
(million m3)
Activity
Drinking water for livestock
Irrigation
Wash down
Spraying
15(b)
843(a)
3(b)
1(a)
75
70
13
4
Source: Irrigation data is from the 2010 Irrigation Survey. All other data is from the Farm Business Survey, England 2009/10.
(a) Figures on a per hectare basis.
(b) Figures on a per livestock unit basis.
Livestock access to water courses can be seen in table 3. Approximately 39% of farms with
other cattle (i.e. mainly rearing cattle) have access to water courses whereas only 2% of
farms with other livestock have access to water courses.
As mentioned above irrigation is one of the major uses of water in agriculture. In 2010 a total
of just over 2,200 holdings irrigated outdoor crops and grass. The total area irrigated in 2010
was just over 83 thousand hectares. This is a decrease of 28% compared to the area
irrigated in 2005. This decrease in area can be partly explained by a reduction in the number
of irrigators and wetter weather seen in 2010 compared with 2005.
Weather is a major factor that influences the decision to irrigate crops. Summer is
considered to be the most important time of year for irrigation needs and the summer rainfall
has a direct effect of the area of crops irrigated and volume of water applied. The summer of
2010 was wetter than that of 2005 and would suggest a reduction in irrigation needs for
2010. Figure 1 below shows the rainfall in England for the winter, spring and summer of
2005 compared to 2010. As the 2010 Irrigation Survey was carried out in October these are
the most relevant seasons to the irrigation data collected.
6
Figure 1: Rainfall in England: 2005 and 2010
winter
2010
spring
235
2005
113
164
0
summer
195
162
100
175
200
300
400
500
600
England rainfall (mm)
Source: The Met Office
Seasons: winter=Dec-Feb, spring=Mar-May, summer=June-Aug.
Figure 2 shows the irrigated area for each crop as a proportion of the total irrigated area for
2005 and 2010. It is clear from the charts that despite the reduction in total area the
proportional area irrigated for each crop has remained very similar in 2010 compared with
2005. This suggests that those who still irrigate are irrigating a similar area as in previous
years.
The two largest irrigated areas in 2010 were main crop potatoes and vegetables for human
consumption with areas of 31.8 thousand hectares and 20.5 thousand hectares respectively.
The irrigated areas for each of the crops surveyed can be found in table 4.
Figure 2: Irrigated areas by crop type: 2005 and 2010
2010
2005
6%
6%
37%
11%
38%
Sugar beet
Other outdoor crops
Other outdoor crops
Early potatoes
Early potatoes
Grass
Grass
Small fruit
Orchard fruit
28%
Cereals
Cereals
Sugar beet
8%
10%
Vegetables
5% Vegetables
6%
7%
Main crop potatoes
1%
Main crop potatoes
4% 2%
2%1%
3%
Small fruit
Orchard fruit
25%
Source: Irrigation Survey
7
The volume of water applied to crops is directly related to the area irrigated. Therefore as a
result of the reduction in area irrigated in 2010 the total volume of water used for irrigation
also decreased compared to 2005. The total volume of water used for irrigation in 2010 was
70 million m3 compared with 93 million m3 in 2005.
Figure 3 shows how the water applied to each crop in 2010 compares to that applied to the
same crops in 2005. As with the areas irrigated the proportion of water used per crop
remains almost unchanged between 2005 and 2010. As expected the largest crop areas are
those with the largest proportions of water applied. Main crop potatoes and vegetables for
human consumption were the two largest with just under 34 and 18 million cubic metres of
water applied respectively. Volumes for each crop type can be found in table 5.
Figure 3: Volume of water applied for irrigation by crop: 2005 and 2010
2005
2010
2%
2% 1%
3%
4%
1%
3%
Main crop potatoes
5%
5%
Main crop potatoes
2%
Vegetables
4%
Vegetables
Early potatoes
Early potatoes
5%
Other outdoor crops
Other outdoor crops
7%
49%
27%
Sugar beet
6%
48%
Sugar beet
Small fruit
Small fruit
Cereals
Cereals
Grass
Grass
26%
Orchard fruit
Orchard fruit
As mentioned above the weather also has a direct effect on the volume of water applied and
the relevant period of 2010 (winter to summer) was wetter than 2005 (see figure 1). However
despite the wetter weather the volume of water applied per hectare is higher for almost all
crops in 2010 compared with 2005 so this suggests more water was required for each crop
in 2010.
The volume of water required to irrigate different crops varies and figure 4 shows the
changes in volume per hectare for each crop between 2005 and 2010. The average volume
per hectare for each crop is based on those holdings who irrigated that crop; holdings that
did not irrigate in 2010 are excluded. The largest increase (in absolute terms) was for small
fruit which increased from 925 to 1,197 m3/ha. Table 6 shows the average volume of water
applied to each crop per hectare.
8
Figure 4: Average volume of water applied for irrigation per hectare by crop: 2005 and 2010
1400
2005
Volume m3 per hectare
1200
2010
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Table 7 shows the average volume of irrigation water applied per hectare by region. As
might be expected by the variation in weather across the different regions of the country, the
volume per hectare also differs by region. The average volume per hectare ranges from 458
m3/ha in the North East to 911 m3/ha in the East Midlands.
The proportional areas of crops irrigated by each method have remained consistent in 2010
compared with 2001 and 2005 (see table 10). Figure 5 shows that 93% of the total irrigated
area was irrigated using hose reels with either rain guns (76%) or booms (17%) in 2010.
Figure 5: Proportion of irrigated area by irrigation method: 2010
4%
2% 0%
1%
Hose reels with rain guns
Hose reels with booms
17%
Trickle or drip
Static or hand-moved
sprinklers, spray lines
Centre pivots or linear moves
76%
Other
9
Figure 6 shows that almost 80% of farmers use judgement not based on measurement (such
as crop inspection or feeling the soil) in deciding when to irrigate. The next most common
method is use of in-field soil moisture measurements (such as neutron probes or
tensiometers) with 29% of farmers basing their irrigation decisions on this.
Figure 6: Proportion of holdings using each irrigation scheduling method
Judgement not based
on measurement
In-field soil moisture
measurement
Computer based water
balance calculations
Water balance calculations
by hand
Other
0
20
40
60
% of farmers using each method
80
100
Almost 20% of holdings use computer based water calculations to decide when to irrigate.
As table 12 shows, the Cambridge University Farms model, Happy Irrigator and ADAS
Irriguide are equally popular computer based tools with around 20% of farmers using each.
10
Water sources
This section looks at the volumes and cost of water abstracted or collected from various
water sources. The predominant water source used for all activities is from a water company
(table 13). A small percentage of farms are using recycled water or rainwater as their main
source of water on farm.
Table B shows that the most common source of water on farm is from a mains water
company (83%), compared to 2% of farms using water from ponds/lakes/reservoirs. Farms
of any type are just as likely to use mains water (figure 7). Grazing livestock farms and
mixed farms are far more likely (60% and 46% respectively) to use water from
rivers/streams/springs than cropping or granivore (pigs and poultry) farms (14% and 7%
respectively). The use of mains water is similar across all farm sizes (table 16) with little
variation seen across river basin catchment areas (table 17). The south west has the
smallest proportion of farms using mains water (72%).
Table B: Percentage of farms using various water sources
Water source
Percentage of farms
Mains water (from water company)
Rivers, streams, springs for direct use
Bore holes
Rainwater storage
Other
Rivers, streams, springs abstraction to reservoirs, ponds, lakes
Ponds/lakes/reservoirs
83
37
21
9
6
2
2
Source: Farm Business Survey, England 2009/10
Note: Some farms use water from more than one source
Figure 7: Primary sources of water by farm type
100
Percentage of farms (%)
90
80
70
60
50
Grazing Livestock
40
Cropping
30
Pigs and Poultry
20
Mixed
10
0
Mains water (from Rivers, streams, water company)
springs for direct use
Bore holes
11
In contrast to water usage across all activities the most predominant sources for irrigation
water are surface water and ground water. Table 18 shows the volume of water used
specifically for irrigation by water source. The largest amounts of irrigation water used in
2010 were sourced from surface water and ground water with 36 and 29 million cubic metres
respectively. This accounts for 93% of the total water used for irrigation in 2010 and 35% of
all water used in agriculture.
Figure 8 below shows how the volumes of irrigation water from each source compare
between 2001, 2005 and 2010. Despite the smaller volumes of water used in 2010
compared with the previous years, the proportion of water from each source remains similar.
Figure 8: Proportion of irrigation water by source: 2001 to 2010
2010
Surface water
Ground water
Public mains
2005
Rain collected
Re-used water
2001
other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of irrigation water
The average cost of water across all sources is £0.49 per m3. Table 19 shows the average
cost by farm type; cropping farms had the lowest cost at £0.35 per m3 and mixed farms had
the highest cost at £0.77 per m3. Table 20 suggests that there may be some scale
economies with water costs as the cost per unit volume decreases as farm size increases.
Across river basin catchment areas (figure 9) there is a variation in the cost per m3 with
farms in the Anglian region having the lowest cost at £0.34 per m3, while farms in the
Thames and the South East area have the highest cost (£0.66 per m3). The total cost of
water accounts for 1% of the total fixed costs.
The average cost of mains water is £1.17 per m3. There is relatively little variation across
farm types (table 22) and farm sizes (table 23). There is greater variation in cost per m3
across river basin catchment areas (table 24) from £0.95 per m3 (South East and
Northumbria) to £1.50 per m3 (South West).
Water that is abstracted or collected can be stored in tanks/reservoirs/ponds/lakes on farm;
11% of farms have the capacity to store water in this way.
12
Figure 9: Average cost of water across all sources by river basin catchment area
0.70
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
North West and Dee
Severn
South West
South East
Thames
Anglian
Humber
Northumbria
Solway Tweed
0.00
13
Management practices and water quality
Management practices undertaken for efficient water use were collected and these practices
can be broadly separated into two groups (Non-challenging and Challenging). Those
practices which were deemed to require more effort/time/cost have been categorised as
challenging. Table C below shows the breakdown between non-challenging and challenging.
Figure 10 shows for each activity the split between non-challenging and challenging; the
uptake of the non-challenging practices is greater than the challenging practices across all
activities, with nearly all of those farms that spray carrying out at least one of the nonchallenging practices. Tables 27 to 30 show for each activity the most relevant management
practices. Across all activities the most popular management practice is ‘Operator
judgement’. For spraying (table 28) for 3 (agronomic advice, weather forecast and operator
judgement) of the 5 practices over 60% of the farms are carrying them out. For the livestock
activities (wash down and drinking water for livestock) a high percentage of farms either
provided no answer or recorded no management practices (table 25).
Table C: Management practices undertaken for efficient water use divided into nonchallenging and challenging
Non-challenging
Challenging
• High tech spray nozzles
• Recycling
• Optimised irrigation
• Decision support tool
systems
• Own weather forecast/records
• Agronomic advice
• Water balance calculations
• Other weather
• In-field soil moisture measurement (including feeling
forecast/records
soil, crop inspection).
• Operator Judgement
• Rainwater collection systems
Other nonagricultural uses
Other agricultural
uses
Drinking water for
livestock
Challenging
Wash down
Non‐challenging
Spraying
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Irrigation
Figure 10: Management practices for efficient water use
Note: This figure refers to those farms carrying out practices and excludes those who are not carrying out any practices.
14
Figure 11 below shows the primary reasons why farms are carrying out management
practices for efficient water use; across all activities the most recorded reason was
financial/customer. The least recorded reason across all activities was legislation/licence.
Figure 11: Primary reasons for carrying out water efficient methods
Other non-agricultural uses
Other agricultural uses
No reason provided
Financial/Customer
Environmental
Wash down
Legislation/Licence
constraints
Spraying
Strategic
Irrigation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Note: This figure refers to those farms carrying out practices and excludes those who are not carrying out any practices.
This section also examines the management practices undertaken to reduce or prevent
water pollution. Table 34 shows that the three most popular management practices are
calibrating fertiliser spreaders (58%), reducing stocking rate (57%) and testing soil nutrient
levels (55%). Precision application of livestock manures was the least popular practice
(12%). Figure 12 shows that for each management practice the largest percentage occurs
for the most relevant type i.e. for reduce stocking rate this is highest for grazing livestock
farms (86%) whereas for testing soil nutrients this is highest on cropping farms (79%). Table
35b shows that 42% of granivore farms are not carrying out any management practices
compared to just 1% of mixed farms.
15
Figure 12: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
No management practices Precision application of livestock manures
Capital works to reduce pollution of surface water by farm operations
Minimum tillage
Improved storage of animal waste
Disrupt tramlines
Follow a guidance system for managing nutrient input Keep livestock out of water courses Use 6 metre buffer strips, ponds and wetlands to reduce run‐off and store water Testing soil nutrient levels
Reduce stocking rate when soils are wet
Calibrating fertiliser spreaders
0
Cropping
Grazing Livestock
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
The management practices undertaken to reduce or prevent water pollution can be broadly
separated into three groups (table D). Figure 13 shows that across all river basin catchment
areas the uptake of practices with some link to regulation is greatest. The uptake of those
practices with a strong link to regulation varies across area, with Anglian having the lowest
(40%) and Solway Tweed having the largest (70%). Tables 38 to 40 show that for cereal,
general cropping and dairy farms the uptake of practices (grouped as in table D) is not linked
with economic performance.
Table D: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent water pollution
Little or no direct link to
Some link to regulation
Strong link to regulation
regulation
• Calibrating fertiliser
• Reduce stocking rate
• Capital works to reduce
spreaders
when soils are wet
pollution of surface
water by farm
• Testing soil nutrient
• Use 6 metre buffer
operations
levels
strips, ponds and
wetlands to reduce run• Keep livestock out of
• Minimum tillage
off and store water
water courses
• Disrupt tramlines
• Improved storage of
animal waste
• Precision application of
livestock manures
• Follow a guidance
system for managing
nutrient input
16
Figure 13: Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent water pollution by
River Basin Catchment Area
Note: This figure excludes those who are not carrying out any practices.
A large percentage (69%) of farms did not provide an answer to the question covering future
management practices being planned to reduce or prevent water pollution (table 41). This
may be due to the farmer not knowing what practices they plan to do, or they have no future
plans, or they refused to answer the question. The timing of this module followed the
introduction of new Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) regulations (2009/2010) which would
have seen many farmers introduce new practices, leaving less to do in the future.
As the number of management practices taken to reduce or prevent water pollution carried
out on farm increases so does the average FBI per farm (table 42). For farms carrying out no
practices the average FBI was around £32,000, whereas for those farms carrying out 7 or
more practices the average FBI was around £58,000.
Figure 14 shows that the most popular reasons for carrying out management practices to
reduce water pollution were environmental (43%) and financial/customer (28%). The least
popular reason was strategic (4%).
17
Figure 14: Primary reasons for carrying out practices to reduce or prevent pollution
Strategic
Change of land use
Legislation/Licence Constraints
Environmental
Financial/Customer
No reason provided
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Note: This figure excludes those who are not carrying out any practices or did not answer.
18
Table Content
1
Page
2
Volumes of water used by activity
Volumes of water used for wash down and drinking water for livestock
farms
22
3
Livestock access to water course
22
4
Irrigated area by crop
23
5
Volume of water applied for irrigation by crop
23
6
Average volume of water applied for irrigation per hectare by crop
24
7
Average volume of water applied for irrigation per hectare by region
24
8
Average area irrigated and volume of water applied per holding by crop
25
9
Area irrigated by irrigation method
25
10
Proportion of irrigated area by irrigation method
26
11
Proportion of holdings using each irrigation scheduling method
Proportion of holdings using computer based water balance calculation
tools
26
12
21
26
Water sources
Table Content
Page
13
Predominant water source for various activities
27
14
Percentage of farms using various water sources
27
15
Percentage of farms using various water sources by farm type
28
16
Percentage of farms using various water sources by farm size
28
17
Percentage of farms using mains water by river basin catchment area
28
18
Volume of water applied for irrigation by water source
29
19
Average cost of water from all sources by farm type
29
20
Average cost of water from all sources by farm size
30
21
Average cost of water from all sources by river basin catchment area
30
22
Average cost of Mains water by farm type
31
23
Average cost of Mains water by farm size
31
24
Average cost of Mains water by river basin catchment area
32
19
Table
Content
Page
25
No answer/No management practices for efficient water use recorded
33
26
Management practices for efficient water use
33
27
Management practices for efficient water use – Irrigation
33
28
Management practices for efficient water use – Spraying
34
29
Management practices for efficient water use – Wash down
34
30
Management practices for efficient water use – Drinking water for livestock
34
31
Future management practices for efficient water use - No answer/No
management practices recorded
35
32
Future management practices for efficient water use
35
33
Primary reasons for carrying out efficient water methods
36
34
Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
37
35
Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by farm type
38
36
Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic
performance
41
37
Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent pollution by
river basin catchment areas
43
38
economic performance for Cereal farms
43
39
economic performance for General Cropping farms
44
40
economic performance for Dairy farms
44
41
Future management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
45
42
Farm Business Income by number of management practices taken to
reduce or prevent pollution
45
43
Primary reasons for carrying out practices to reduce or prevent pollution
46
20
Table 1: Volumes of water used by activity
Average water used per farm
Activity
Irrigation
Spraying
Wash down
Leakages
Total
Total water
used
(million m3)
70
4
13
75
1
18
2
Average per
farm
(m3 per farm)
31 600
100
310
1810
90
1070
730
Confidence
interval
(m3 per farm)
Average water used per hectare or livestock unit
Indicator
Average per
hec/LU
(m3 per hec/LU)
Confidence
interval
(m3 per hec/LU)
Indicator
(a)
± 20
± 40
± 90
± 20
± 820
± 230
843
1(a)
3(b)
15(b)
± 0.2
± 0.3
± 0.5
⌧
184
Source: Irrigation data is sourced from the 2010 Irrigation Survey. All other data is from the Farm Business Survey, England 2009/10
Note: The figures for each activity refer to just those farms carrying out that activity
(a) Figures on a per hectare basis
(b) Figures on a per livestock unit basis
21
Table 2: Volumes of water used for wash down and drinking water for livestock farms
Total water used m3
(million)
Wash down
Farm type
Dairy
Grazing Livestock
Pigs and Poultry
Farm type
11
0.2
0.4
Total water used
m3 (million)
Drinking water for
livestock
Dairy
Grazing Livestock
Pigs and Poultry
34
18
8
Wash down
Average per farm Confidence interval Indicator
(m3 per farm)
(m3 per farm)
1300
20
230
± 150
± 10
± 100
⌧
Average per farm Confidence interval Indicator
(m3 per farm)
(m3 per farm)
4030
1130
4120
± 290
± 60
± 690
Average water used per livestock unit
Wash down
Average per LU
Confidence interval Indicator
(m3 per LU)
(m3 per LU)
7
0.2
0.6
±1
± 0.1
± 0.2
Average water used per livestock unit
Average per LU
Confidence interval Indicator
(m3 per LU)
(m3 per LU)
21
13
11
±1
± 0.4
±1
Table 3: Livestock access to water courses
Livestock
No livestock
Sheep
Dairy cows
Beef cows
Other cattle
Other livestock
Percentage of farms
Confidence interval (%)
Indicator
1*
31
7
25
39
2
± 1*
±3
±1
±3
±3
±1
⌧
⌧
Note: The figures just refer to those farms which recorded a volume of water for drinking water for livestock .Figures will not sum to 100% as farms can have more than one type of livestock.
*This figure is based on a small sample so care should be taken when interpreting it.
22
Table 4: Irrigated area by crop: 2001 to 2010
Hectares
Crop
Early potatoes
Main crop potatoes
Sugar beet
Orchard fruit
Small fruit
Vegetables
Grass
Cereals
Other outdoor crops
Total
2001
7 300
69 820
9 760
1 580
3 770
39 180
3 970
4 620
7 280
2005
6 415
43 140
8 487
1 468
2 631
32 202
3 671
10 979
7 280
2010
4 211
31 776
6 241
1 068
1 408
20 526
3 315
9 563
5 030
% change
2010/2005
-34
-26
-26
-27
-46
-36
-10
-13
-31
147 270
116 272
83 139
-28
Table 5: Volume of water applied for irrigation by crop: 2001 to 2010
Thousand cubic metres (‘000m3)
Crop
Early potatoes
Main crop potatoes
Sugar beet
Orchard fruit
Small fruit
Vegetables
Grass
Cereals
Other outdoor crops
Total
2001
5 710
69 940
4 630
900
3 370
34 120
2 320
1 470
8 840
2005
6 433
45 637
3 776
731
2 434
24 740
1 982
2 394
4 757
2010
4 345
33 688
2 612
587
1 686
17 929
2 193
3 264
3 761
% change
2010/2005
-32
-26
-31
-20
-31
-28
11
36
-21
131 300
92 883
70 065
-25
23
Table 6: Average volume of water applied for irrigation per hectare by crop: 2001 to 2010
Cubic metres per hectare (m3/ha)
Crop
Early potatoes
Main crop potatoes
Sugar beet
Orchard fruit
Small fruit
Vegetables
Grass
Cereals
Other outdoor crops
Total
2001
782
1 002
474
570
894
871
584
318
1 214
2005
1 003
1 058
445
498
925
768
540
218
653
2010
1 032
1 060
419
550
1 197
873
661
341
748
% change
2010/2005
3
0
-6
10
29
14
23
57
14
892
799
843
6
Table 7: Average volume of water applied for irrigation per hectare by region: 2010
Region
North East
North West & Merseyside
Yorkshire & The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
South East (incl. London)
South West
England
Volume
per hectare
(m3/ha)
458
574
803
911
789
888
755
562
843
24
Table 8: Average area irrigated and volume of water applied per holding by crop: 2010
Crop
Early potatoes
Main crop potatoes
Sugar beet
Orchard fruit
Small fruit
Vegetables
Grass
Cereals
Other outdoor crops
Total
Number of
holdings
278
1 111
265
134
206
646
270
293
290
Average
area (ha)
15
29
24
8
7
32
12
33
17
Average
volume (m3)
15 651
30 335
9 839
4 379
8 189
27 754
8 137
11 159
12 977
2 217
38
31 604
Table 9: Area irrigated by irrigation method and number of holdings using each method: 2010
Area
Number of
Irrigation method
(hectares)
holdings
Static or hand-moved sprinklers, spray lines
1 693
261
62 814
1 648
14 524
397
700
23
Trickle or drip
3 155
320
Other
252
33
83 139
2 217
Total
Note: The number of holdings using each method will not add up to the total number of irrigators as farmers can use more than one irrigation method.
25
Table 10: Proportion of irrigated area by irrigation method: 2001 to 2010
Irrigation method
Static or hand-moved sprinklers, spray lines
Trickle or drip
Other
Total
2001
4
72
16
3
5
<<1
100
% of irrigated area
2005
2010
5
2
67
76
19
17
4
1
5
4
<<1
<<1
100
100
Table 11: Proportion of holdings using each irrigation scheduling method: 2010
Scheduling method
Computer based water balance calculations
Water balance calculations by hand
In-field soil moisture measurement (e.g. neutron probes, tensiometers)
Judgement not based on measurement (e.g. crop inspection, feeling the soil)
Other
Farmers using
each method (%)
19
14
29
78
5
Note: Farmers may use more than one scheduling method, therefore figures will sum to more than 100%.
Table 12: Proportion of holdings using computer based water balance calculation tools(a): 2010
Computer based tool
Cambridge University Farms model
Happy Irrigator
ADAS Irriguide
Defra Water Management Toolkit
CROPWAT
Other
Farmers using
each tool (%)
19
21
21
3
1
44
Note: Farmers may use more than one calculation tool, therefore figures will sum to more than 100%.
(a) For all holdings who use computer based tools.
26
Water sources
Table 13: Predominant water source for various activities
Predominant source
Percentage
of farms
Spraying
Confidence
interval (%)
4
71
23
2
±1
±3
±3
±1
No source provided
Water company
Abstracted
Rainwater/Recycling
Predominant source
No source provided
Water company
Abstracted/Rainwater/Recycling
Indicator
Percentage
of farms
Wash down
Confidence
interval (%)
4
67
27
2
±1
±3
±3
±1
⌧
Percentage Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
3
75
23
±2
±5
±5
⌧
Indicator
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
⌧
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
13
73
15
2
55
40
3
⌧
±1
±3
±3
±1
⌧
Percentage
of farms
Leakages
Confidence
interval (%)
5
95
±5
±5
±4
±5
±4
Indicator
⌧
Note: The figures for each activity refer to just those farms carrying out that activity
Table 14: Percentage of farms using various water sources
Water Source
Bore holes
Rainwater storage
Other
Rivers, streams, springs abstraction to reservoirs, ponds, lakes
Ponds/lakes/reservoirs
Percentage of farms
Indicator
83
37
21
9
6
2
2
±2
±3
±2
±2
±2
±1
±1
⌧
⌧
Note: Figures will not sum to 100% as farms can be using more than one source of water.
27
Table 15: Percentage of farms using various water sources by farm type
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
Farm type
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
Grazing Livestock
Cropping
Pigs and Poultry
Mixed
79
88
87
85
±3
±3
±6
±9
60
15
7
46
±4
±3
±5
± 11
All types
83
±2
37
±3
Percentage
of farms
⌧
Bore holes
Confidence
interval (%)
23
17
36
22
±4
±3
±9
±8
21
±2
Indicator
Table 16: Percentage of farms using various water sources by farm size
Farm size
of farms
interval (%) Indicator
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
Percentage
of farms
Bore holes
Confidence
interval (%)
Small
Medium
Large
83
79
86
±3
±5
±3
36
36
41
±4
±5
±5
15
26
31
±3
±5
±5
All sizes
83
±2
37
±3
21
±2
Indicator
Table 17: Percentage of farms using mains water by river basin catchment area
River basin catchment area
Percentage of farms
Confidence Interval (%)
Solway Tweed
Northumbria
Humber
Anglian
Thames
South East
South West
Severn
North West and Dee
84
76
82
90
93
98
72
83
76
± 10
±9
±5
±4
±6
±4
±7
±7
±8
All areas
83
±2
Indicator
28
Table 18: Volume of water applied for irrigation by water source: 2001 to 2010
Water source
Surface water
Ground water
Public mains
Rain collected
Re-used water
Other
Total
2001
75 760
47 810
4 300
2 050
670
710
131 300
Volume ('000m3)
2005
2010
50 343
36 418
38 184
28 748
813
745
617
442
986
276
1 939
3 436
92 883
Proportion of volume (%)
2001
2005
2010
58
54
52
36
41
41
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
5
70 065
Table 19: Average cost of water from all sources by farm type
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Confidence interval (£/m3)
Grazing Livestock
Cropping
Pigs and Poultry
Mixed
0.60
0.35
0.63
0.77
± 0.05
± 0.10
± 0.14
± 0.12
All types
0.49
± 0.07
Farm type
Indicator
Note: Farms with no volume of water recorded were excluded.
29
Table 20: Average cost of water from all sources by farm size
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Small
Medium
Large
0.69
0.63
0.40
± 0.11
± 0.09
± 0.09
All sizes
0.49
± 0.07
Farm size
Indicator
Table 21: Average cost of water from all sources by river basin catchment area
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Solway Tweed
Northumbria
Humber
Anglian
Thames
South East
South West
Severn
North West and Dee
0.45
0.50
0.52
0.34
0.66
0.66
0.60
0.52
0.55
± 0.09
± 0.09
± 0.10
± 0.14
± 0.12
± 0.19
± 0.12
± 0.17
± 0.12
All areas
0.49
± 0.07
Indicator
⌧
30
Table 22: Average cost of mains water by farm type
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Dairy
LFA Grazing Livestock
Lowland Grazing Livestock
Cereals
General Cropping
Pigs
Poultry
Mixed
Horticulture
1.21
1.27
1.16
1.18
1.17
1.12
1.12
1.20
1.04
± 0.07
± 0.06
± 0.07
± 0.05
± 0.10
± 0.12
± 0.16
± 0.07
± 0.06
All types
1.17
± 0.03
Farm type
Indicator
Note: This table just refers to those farms which are using mains water.
Table 23: Average cost of mains water by farm size
Farm size
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Confidence Interval (£/m3)
Part-time
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
1.26
1.21
1.23
1.16
1.10
± 0.09
± 0.06
± 0.05
± 0.07
± 0.06
All sizes
1.17
± 0.03
Indicator
Sources: Farm Business Survey, England 2009/10
31
Table 24: Average cost of mains water by river basin catchment area
Cost per m3 (£/m3)
Solway Tweed
Northumbria
Humber
Anglian
Thames
South East
South West
Severn
North West and Dee
1.33
0.95
1.17
1.15
1.02
0.95
1.50
1.21
1.29
± 0.04
± 0.04
± 0.07
± 0.07
± 0.04
± 0.05
± 0.12
± 0.06
± 0.05
All areas
1.17
± 0.03
Indicator
32
Table 25: No answer/No management practices for efficient water use recorded
Activity
Percentage of farms
Indicator
9
17
59
73
66
79
±5
±3
±3
±3
±6
±5
⌧
Irrigation
Spraying
Wash down
Table 26: Management practices for efficient water use
Activity
Non-challenging
Percentage of farms Confidence interval (%)
Irrigation
Spraying
Wash down
85
99
78
62
97
98
Indicator
Challenging
±9
±1
±4
±6
±3
±2
77
47
28
44
9
8
±9
±4
±4
±7
±5
±6
Indicator
⌧
⌧
Note: The figures for each activity refer to just those farms carrying out both the activity and associated management practices. Figures will not sum to 100% as farms can be carrying out both nonchallenging and challenging activities.
Table 27: Management practices for efficient water use – Irrigation
Management practice
Optimised irrigation system
Agronomic advice
Weather forecast/records (own and other)
In-field soil moisture measurement
Operator judgement
Percentage of farms
38
30
59
49
67
± 11
±9
± 10
± 10
±9
Indicator
33
Table 28: Management practices for efficient water use – Spraying
Management practice
High tech spray nozzles
Agronomic advice
Weather forecast/records (own or other)
Operator judgement
Percentage of farms
48
67
76
76
±4
±4
±3
±3
Indicator
Table 29: Management practices for efficient water use – Wash down
Management practice
Recycling/rainwater collection systems
Operator judgement
Percentage of farms
Indicator
3
75
±2
±4
⌧
Table 30: Management practices for efficient water use – Drinking water for livestock
Management practice
Recycling/rainwater collection systems
Operator judgement
Percentage of farms
Indicator
4
59
±2
±7
⌧
34
Table 31: Future management practices for efficient water use - No answer/No management practices recorded
Activity
Percentage of farms
76
74
81
85
83
94
8
3
3
3
5
3
Irrigation
Spraying
Wash down
Indicator
Table 32: Future management practices for efficient water use
Activity
Irrigation
Spraying
Wash down
Non-challenging
84
81
36
19
60
46
13
6
7
7
15
22
Indicator
⌧
Percentage of farms
Challenging
78
49
66
88
41
14
7
7
5
15
70*
21*
Indicator
*This figure is based on a small sample so care should be taken when interpreting it.
35
Table 33: Primary reasons for carrying out efficient water methods
Primary reason
No reason provided
Financial/Customer
Environmental
Legislation/Licence
constraints
Strategic
Primary reason
No reason provided
Financial/Customer
Environmental
Legislation/Licence
constraints
Strategic
Percentage
of farms
Irrigation
Confidence
interval (%)
Indicator
1
55
11
±2
±11
±6
⌧
5
28
±4
±9
⌧
⌧
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
5
51
18
±3
±7
±5
⌧
3
23
±2
±6
⌧
Percentage
of farms
Spraying
Confidence
interval (%)
3
45
32
±1
±4
±4
6
15
±2
±3
Indicator
⌧
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
13
61
15
±9
± 11
±8
⌧
5
5
±3
±4
Percentage
of farms
Wash down
Confidence
interval (%)
Indicator
2
55
19
±2
±5
±4
⌧
3
21
±2
±4
⌧
Percentage
Confidence
of farms
interval (%)
Indicator
±9
± 13
± 11
⌧
⌧
11
52
19
⌧
⌧
6
12
±6
± 10
⌧
⌧
⌧
36
Table 34: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
Management practice
No answer provided
No management practices
Use 6 metre buffer strips, ponds and wetlands to reduce run-off and store water
Testing soil nutrient levels
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Precision application of livestock manures
Follow a guidance system for managing nutrient input
Keep livestock out of water courses
Percentage of farms
Indicator
1
10
35
19
58
55
20
21
12
27
57
31
20
±1
±2
±3
±2
±3
±2
±2
±2
±2
±3
±2
±3
±2
⌧
37
Table 35a: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by farm type
Management practice
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Grazing Livestock
of farms
9
22
24
43
35
4
5
16
17
86
43
35
±3
±4
±4
±4
±4
±2
±2
±3
±3
±3
±5
±4
⌧
Percentage
of farms
Cropping
Confidence
interval (%)
Indicator
12
51
14
77
79
38
36
8
39
27
17
5
±3
±5
±3
±3
±3
±4
±4
±3
±5
±4
±4
±2
⌧
Note: Those farms which did not provide an answer have been excluded
38
Table 35b: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by farm type
Management practice
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Pigs and Poultry
of farms
42
9*
16
10*
17
5*
8*
7*
15*
17
35
± 10
± 6*
±8
± 6*
±7
± 4*
± 6*
± 5*
± 7*
±7
± 10
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
⌧
Percentage
of farms
Mixed
Confidence
interval (%)
38
23
64
54
15
28
16
29
80
51
20
± 10
±8
± 10
± 10
±7
±9
±8
±8
±8
± 11
±8
Indicator
-
⌧
⌧
- This figure has been suppressed as not enough observations were present
* This figure is based on a small sample so care should be taken when interpreting it.
39
Table 35c: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by farm type
Management practice
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Percentage of farms
All types
11
36
19
59
56
20
21
13
27
57
32
20
±2
±3
±2
±3
±2
±2
±2
±2
±3
±3
±3
±2
Indicator
40
Table 36a: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic performance
Management practice
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Percentage
of farms
Low
Confidence
interval (%)
12
38
17
60
58
21
22
13
33
56
31
23
±4
±6
±5
±6
±6
±5
±5
±4
±6
±6
±6
±5
Indicator
Percentage
of farms
Medium
Confidence
interval (%)
9
38
21
63
59
21
21
14
29
58
34
21
±3
±4
±3
±4
±4
±3
±3
±3
±4
±4
±4
±3
Indicator
Note: Those farms which did not provide an answer have been excluded. Economic performance banding used here is across all farm types.
41
Table 36b: Management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic performance
Management practice
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Percentage
of farms
High
Confidence
interval (%)
13
29
18
48
46
17
20
10
20
58
28
16
±4
±6
±5
±6
±6
±5
±5
±4
±5
±6
±6
±4
Indicator
All performance bands
of farms
11
36
19
59
56
20
21
13
27
57
32
20
±2
±3
±2
±3
±2
±2
±2
±2
±3
±3
±3
±2
Note: Those farms which did not provide an answer have been excluded. Economic performance banding used here is across all farm types.
42
Table 37: Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent pollution by river basin catchment areas
River basin
catchment area
Little or no direct link to regulations
Percentage of Confidence
farms
Some link to regulation
Percentage of
Confidence
farms
interval (%)
Indicator
Strong link to regulation
Percentage of Confidence
farms
Solway Tweed
Northumbria
Humber
Anglian
Thames
South East
South West
Severn
North West and Dee
86
91
70
87
76
71
64
65
65
± 10
±7
±7
±5
± 11
± 13
±8
± 10
±9
92
94
89
86
94
89
96
89
93
±7
±7
±5
±5
±5
± 10
±3
±5
±4
70
49
62
29
40
49
65
69
60
± 13
± 13
±8
±6
± 12
± 15
±8
±9
± 10
All areas
74
±3
91
±2
52
±3
Note: Farms carrying out no practice or who did not provide an answer are excluded. Figures will not sum to 100% as farms can be carrying out practices in all three groups
Table 38: Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic performance for Cereal farms
Management practices
Some link to regulations
Strong link to regulations
Percentage of farms
Low
99
97
34
±1
±5
± 12
Percentage of farms
High
96
88
28
±6
± 11
± 13
Indicator
Indicator
⌧
Percentage of farms
Medium
99
89
40
±2
±6
± 10
98
91
36
Indicator
Indicator
±2
±4
±7
Note: Farms carrying out no practice or who did not provide an answer are excluded. Figures will not sum to 100% as farms can be carrying out practices in all three groups. Economic performance
banding used here is just within cereal farms.
43
Table 39: Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic performance for General Cropping farms
Percentage of farms
Low
89
86
19
± 12
± 13
± 14
Percentage of farms
High
98
88
29
±4
± 11
± 14
Indicator
Percentage of farms
Medium
⌧
94
82
28
±6
± 10
± 11
Indicator
⌧
94
84
26
Indicator
Indicator
±4
±7
±7
banding used here is just within General Cropping farms.
Table 40: Management practices (grouped) taken to reduce or prevent pollution by economic performance for Dairy farms
Percentage of farms
Low
79
94
72
± 10
±6
± 12
Percentage of farms
High
66
100
88
± 13
±0
± 10
Indicator
Indicator
Percentage of farms
Medium
71
94
84
±9
±5
±7
72
96
82
Indicator
Indicator
±6
±3
±5
banding used here is just within Dairy farms.
44
Table 41: Future management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
Management practice
Percentage of farms
69
0
9
8
10
11
8
6
3
6
4
5
9
±3
No answer provided
Minimum tillage
Disrupt tramlines
Indicator
±2
±2
±2
±2
±2
±1
±1
±1
±1
±1
±2
Table 42: Farm Business Income by number of management practices taken to reduce or prevent pollution
Number of management practices
Average Farm Business Income (£ per farm)
Confidence interval (£ per farm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 or more
31 900
31 200
27 000
38 800
49 700
50 100
58 300
58 100
± 7 400
± 6 000
± 4 800
± 6 100
± 10 300
± 12 800
± 18 300
± 17 500
Overall
42 800
± 3 400
Indicator
45
Table 43: Primary reasons for carrying out practices to reduce or prevent pollution
Primary reason
No reason provided
Financial/Customer
Environmental
Legislation/Licence Constraints
Change of land use
Strategic
Percentage of farms
Indicator
1
28
43
15
9
4
±1
±3
±3
±2
±2
±1
⌧
Note: Farms carrying out no practice or who did not provide an answer are excluded.
46

Water Usage in Agriculture and Horticulture Results

Transcription

Similar documents