Environmental Footprint and Sustainability of

Horticulture (including Potatoes) – A Comparison

with other Agricultural Sectors

Final report produced for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

December 2007
Title Environmental Footprint and Sustainability of Horticulture
(including Potatoes) – A Comparison with other Agricultural
Sectors

Customer Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Customer reference WQ0101

Copyright This report has been prepared by Warwick HRI, University of

Warwick, with whom the copyright remains.

Authors Rob Lillywhite – University of Warwick

Dave Chandler - University of Warwick
Wyn Grant - University of Warwick
Kevin Lewis - Best Foot Forward Ltd
Chris Firth - HDRA
Ulrich Schmutz - HDRA
Darren Halpin - Robert Gordon University

Contact Rob Lillywhite

Warwick HRI, University of Warwick
Wellesbourne
Warwick, CV35 9EF

Tel: 02476 575060

Fax: 02476 574500
Email: robert.lillywhite@warwick.ac.uk

2
Executive Summary

Aims and Objectives

To quantify the environmental footprint of horticultural production and to assess the social and
economic impact of that production. To compare the results with other agriculture sectors. The
main objectives were to:

• Identify and quantify the key inputs/outputs associated with horticultural and agricultural
production and determine their environmental impact,
• Construct environmental footprints for selected horticultural and agricultural crops,
• Compare and contrast the environmental footprints of horticultural crops against those of
agricultural crops/commodities on a regional and national scale,
• Estimate the social and economic costs, benefits and impacts of horticulture.

Six indicators were used to calculate the environmental footprint:

• ecological footprint,
• toxicity and quantity of pesticides used,
• global warming potential,
• eutrophication and acidification potential,
• water,
• labour.

The socio-economic footprints of selected horticultural and agricultural sectors were assessed
using nineteen different indicators aggregated into two categories and provided a useful way of
comparing the various agricultural and horticultural sectors. A socio-economic impact analysis
was undertaken based on extensive face-to-face and telephone interviews and sought to
understand what the term ‘environmental footprint’ meant to the horticultural industry.

Environmental footprint - Findings by commodity

Environmental footprints were constructed for twelve commodities on a per hectare, per year
basis. The higher the value, the greater the environmental impact (results in brackets, ranked low
to high):

• winter wheat (11.5) • Narcissi (22.3)

• sugar beet (18.3) • potato (27.1)
• lamb (18.4) • apple (29.2)
• carrot (19.3) • milk (34.6)
• cauliflower (20.3) • protected strawberry (54.9)
• onion (20.3) • protected lettuce (59.1)

Those crops/commodities which required infrastructure (protected lettuce and strawberry) have
large environmental footprints as do those emitting last quantities of greenhouse gases (milk).
Field grown crops on average recorded low scores although potato was higher due to increased
water and storage costs.

3
Environmental footprint - Findings by sector

By sector, the results are dominated by the area grown/occupied rather than by the individual
crop’s environmental footprint. Although the average environmental footprint of the
horticultural crops is higher than the arable crops, 32.2 compared to 18.9, the area occupied by
arable crops is 52 times greater and has an overall environmental burden that is 27 times greater.
The livestock sector has the highest environmental burden, being two and a half times greater
than the arable sector and 74 greater than the horticultural sector. The total environmental
burden assessed in this project can be divided by commodity as follows:
• Horticulture – 1%
• Other arable – 6%
• Winter wheat - 21%
• Lamb - 28%
• Dairy – 44%

Environmental footprint - Findings by region and country

By region, the western areas with their high livestock numbers have a greater environmental
burden compared to the eastern, mainly arable and horticultural regions. Within England the
regional footprints varied from a high of 25.4 in the North-West down to 15.7 in the North East
with an average value of 22.2. Northern Ireland recorded the highest value of 27.1 reflecting the
intense nature of it’s dairying industry and Wales 21.5% while Scotland had a low value of 17.9
which reflects the extensive nature of upland sheep grazing.

In terms of overall environmental impact, England, by virtue of its size, dominates and accounts
for 65% of the UK’s total burden. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland account for the
remaining 12%, 14% and 7% respectively.

Socio-economic aspects

The socio-economic footprints show that the horticultural and agricultural sectors are very
diverse, from very intensive glasshouse production to extensive production of sheep, however,
the indicators still allow some form of comparison. The results highlight the fact that despite the
relatively small area occupied by glasshouse production, flowers and hardy nursery stock, these
sectors rate as the most socio-economically sustainable sectors and have a similar score to the
dairy sector. The field based systems of wheat, potatoes, sugar beet and vegetables occupy the
middle ground in terms of socio-economic sustainability and have many similarities. The least
socio-economically sustainable sectors are sheep and top fruit, although they show very
different characteristics. Although the levels of sustainability between agriculture and
horticulture are similar, the indicators suggest that much of horticulture is lean and economically
viable, competitive and resilient, although with some much weaker sectors, and certain weak
elements such as staff training and development.

A socio-economic impact analysis was undertaken using extensive interviews with a wide
ranging selection of organisations and companies in England and Scotland to determine what
their view was on the environmental footprint of horticulture. The greatest concerns were
expressed over the use of water and energy within horticulture and possible labour shortages in
the future with changes to the SAWS scheme. The environmental impact of polytunnels was
also highlighted and this subject is considered in it’s own section within the report.

4
 Contents

Glossary......................................................................................................................................7
1. Aims and Objectives ..............................................................................................................8
2. A review of footprinting within agriculture and horticulture.................................................9
2.1. Review of existing data ................................................................................................13
2.2. Environmental footprint ...............................................................................................17
2.3. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................17
3. The Environmental Footprint ...............................................................................................19
3.1. Methods ........................................................................................................................19
3.1.1. Ecological footprint..............................................................................................19
3.1.2. Pesticides ..............................................................................................................20
3.1.3. Global warming potential (GWP) ........................................................................20
3.1.4. Eutrophication and acidification potential ...........................................................21
3.1.5. Water ....................................................................................................................21
3.1.6. Labour. .................................................................................................................21
3.1.7. Calculation of the overall environmental footprint ..............................................22
3.2. Approach ......................................................................................................................22
3.3. Results ..........................................................................................................................23
3.3.1. Ecological footprint..............................................................................................23
3.3.2. Pesticide EIQ rating..............................................................................................24
3.3.3. Global warming potential.....................................................................................25
3.3.4. Eutrophication and acidification potential ...........................................................26
3.3.5. Water ....................................................................................................................26
3.3.6. Labour ..................................................................................................................27
3.3.7. Overall results and scaling ...................................................................................28
3.3.8. Dessert apple ........................................................................................................29
3.3.9. Carrot....................................................................................................................31
3.3.10. Onion (dry bulb)...................................................................................................33
3.3.11. Cauliflower...........................................................................................................35
3.3.12. Protected lettuce ...................................................................................................37
3.3.13. Strawberries under polythene...............................................................................39
3.3.14. Narcissi.................................................................................................................41
3.3.15. Potato....................................................................................................................43
3.3.16. Sugar beet .............................................................................................................45
3.3.17. Winter wheat ........................................................................................................47
3.3.18. Lamb.....................................................................................................................49
3.3.19. Milk ......................................................................................................................51
3.3.20. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................53
3.3.21. A case-study on conventional and organic cropping............................................57
4. The socio-economic footprint ..............................................................................................62
4.1. Background ..................................................................................................................62
4.2. Material and Methods...................................................................................................62
4.2.1. The economic dimension of sustainability...........................................................63
4.2.2. Economic component and indicators and how they are calculated......................64
4.2.3. Socio-economic dimension of sustainability........................................................66
4.2.4. Data sources .........................................................................................................69
4.3. Results ..........................................................................................................................71
4.3.1. The economic dimension......................................................................................72
4.3.2. The socio-economic dimension analysis..............................................................74
5
 4.3.3. Bringing the economic and socio-economic dimension together ........................76
4.4. Overall conclusions ......................................................................................................78
5. Socio-economic impact analysis ..........................................................................................79
5.1. England and Wales.......................................................................................................79
5.1.1. Economic viability of horticulture .......................................................................79
5.1.2. Energy costs .........................................................................................................80
5.1.3. Labour ..................................................................................................................81
5.1.4. Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Scheme (SAWS)...............................................82
5.1.5. Social sustainability..............................................................................................85
5.1.6. Environmental sustainability................................................................................87
5.1.7. The contribution of retailers .................................................................................88
5.1.8. Energy ..................................................................................................................89
5.1.9. Water ....................................................................................................................89
5.1.10. Crop diseases........................................................................................................90
5.1.11. Fertilisers and pesticides ......................................................................................90
5.1.12. Landscape impacts ...............................................................................................90
5.1.13. Biodiversity ..........................................................................................................91
5.1.14. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................91
5.2. Scotland ........................................................................................................................92
5.2.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................92
5.2.2. Economic Issues ...................................................................................................93
5.2.3. Social Issues .........................................................................................................99
5.2.4. Environmental/Ecological Issues .......................................................................100
5.2.5. Awareness of ‘Environmental Footprint’...........................................................103
5.2.6. Conclusion..........................................................................................................104
5.3. Horticulture and polytunnels: A case study ...............................................................106
5.3.1. The case in favour of the use of polytunnels......................................................106
5.3.2. The case against the use of polytunnels .............................................................110
5.3.3. Solutions.............................................................................................................117
5.3.4. Conclusions ........................................................................................................124
5.3.5. The use of polytunnels in Scotland ....................................................................125
6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................128
7. Further work .......................................................................................................................130
8. References ..........................................................................................................................131
Annexes…………………………………………………………………………………138

6
 Glossary

Commodity – the marketable output from one hectare of agricultural land. Commodity is used
in preference to crop.

Ecological footprint – A measure to assess how much land and water area a human population
requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing
technology1. Within this report, a measure to assess how much land, resources and energy are
required to grow a commodity. Reports using the global hectare (gha).

EIQ pesticide rating – An assessment of the quantity and toxicity of the pesticides applied to
grow a commodity. A full explanation is contained within section 3.1.2.

Environmental footprint – A scaled average of six indicators (ecological footprint, EIQ

pesticide rating, global warming potential, eutrophication and acidification potential, water use
and labour use) used to describe the overall environmental impact of growing a crop (winter
wheat) or producing a commodity (milk). Reports using one hectare of land but has no units.

Environmental burden – Used generically to describe the effect of aggregated environmental

footprints at farm, county, regional or country level.

Eutrophication and acidification potential – An assessment of the potential for phosphates,

nitrates, ammonia and sulphur dioxide to cause environmental damage. A full explanation is
contained within section 3.1.4.

Global warming potential – An assessment of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane
and nitrous oxide. A full explanation is contained within section 3.1.3.

1
www.footprintnetwork.org/index.php, accessed 25 October 2007

7
1. Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project is to improve understanding of the environmental effects of horticultural
production and its relationship with the social and economic impact of the horticultural industry
and to compare the results with other agriculture sectors. The objectives are to:

• Identify key inputs/outputs associated with horticultural and agricultural crop production
and determine their environmental impact.
• Estimate the relative environmental footprints of the individual sectors within
agricultural and horticulture.
• Compare the environmental impact of horticulture versus agriculture on a national scale.
• Determine the impact of horticulture in different geographical areas.
• Estimate the social and economic costs and benefits of horticulture.
• Identify horticultural sectors and regions where there is potential for improvement.
• Recommend improvements, identify knowledge gaps and make suggestions for future
research.

The project prepared environmental footprints for the following commodities:

• cauliflower
• bulb onion
• carrot
• dessert apple
• strawberries under polythene
• Narcissi
• glasshouse lettuce
• potato
• sugar beet
• winter wheat
• milk
• lamb

The project uses a multi-disciplinary approach to assess the environmental impacts of the
physical resources required for and emitted from the production of agricultural commodities, the
economic return from those commodities and the socio-economic impact that production incurs.

The scale and availability of the data available for each of the three categories (environmental,
economic and socio-economic) is different so where environmental footprints have been drawn
up for each of the 12 commodities, the economic and socio-economic footprints have focused on
genus, e.g. Brassica not cauliflower and the socio-economic impact tends to have been assessed
by region and country.

This report presents the results in five main chapters dealing with the environmental footprint,
the socio-economic footprint and the socio-economic impact analysis. This is preceded by a
short review of footprinting in agricultural and concluded with the overall assessment and
discussion.

8
2. A review of footprinting within agriculture and horticulture

UK farming is undergoing radical change as a result of CAP reform. Farmers and growers are
now expected to develop businesses that are sustainable in economic, environmental and social
terms. Subsidised production has been replaced by a farming economy driven by the market,
but with government subsidies for environmental stewardship. Thus farmers must give increased
attention to the needs of consumers, and take full advantage of agri-environment schemes that
pay farmers to manage their land in environmentally sensitive ways. The focus is very much on
understanding the farm as an integrated system. A key component is the environmental impact
of farm production processes (for example, the environmental impact of producing a crop of
wheat). Quantifying and understanding these processes provides the basis for targeting agri-
environment schemes and other mitigation efforts. At the same time, the environmental impacts
of farm production need to be set within the appropriate socio-economic context, because UK
farm industries are important components of the rural economy and the social life of rural
communities, as well as providing 80% of the food consumed by the nation.

The environmental impact of horticulture

Horticulture is well placed to take advantage of the new farming economy. It has been largely
exempt from production subsidies and there has always been a strong consumer focus. The
entrepreneurial ethos within the industry means that growers are likely to be quick to exploit the
potential of agri-environment schemes for boosting farm income. Although the horticultural
sector occupies only 4% of the UK agricultural land area, the high intensity of production of
many horticultural crops means that their environmental impact is likely to be disproportionate
to the area of land under cultivation. Hence environmental mitigation incentives based solely on
land area are could well miss the target. Horticulture is also a labour intensive industry
compared to other agricultural sectors (thus having a greater impact on the rural economy), and
horticultural produce is an important component of a healthy diet (thus contributing to the well
being of the nation). It is important to take these issues into account if the true impact of the
horticultural industry is to be understood. Horticulture is a very diverse industry with a wide
array of crops and cultivation systems. Understanding the impact of these diverse processes on
the environment is therefore a considerable challenge.

Environmental impact assessments

There are a range of approaches that can be used to assess the inputs and outputs from a
production system, and therefore come up with an estimation of the net impact on the
environment. These include material flow analysis, footprinting, physical input-output tables,
life cycle assessments, and the sustainable process index. This review will focus on two
methods; life cycle assessment and ecological footprinting and will go on to highlight particular
challenges in terms of evaluating inputs, outputs, and environmental impact.

Life cycle assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an accounting method which quantifies and describes all the
inputs required to manufacture a product and the wastes that are a by-product of the
manufacturing process. Although initially developed for industrial products, the method has
been successfully used on agricultural commodities. In the case of agricultural commodities,
inputs include the manufacture of fertilizer and pesticides and the energy content of electricity
and diesel used in field operations. LCA’s report their results using functional units, for example
a tonne of wheat or 1000 litres milk. When used on a single crop (or product), LCA is sensitive

9
enough to distinguish between different management strategies or different nitrogen fertilizer
rates. However, the downside of this sensitivity (and the use of individual functional units) is
that LCAs are not recommended for use when comparing between different commodities
although Williams et al. (2006) used the principles of LCA to drawn up detailed environmental
inventories for a number of different commodities and compared different production methods
(conventional and organic).

LCA is a useful tool for quantifying, sometimes in great detail, the environmental impact of a
process or product. However it was not designed to compare the environmental impact of a
range of different crops. The transparency and usefulness of any accounting method tends to
decrease with increasing flexibility. If the environmental impact of different agricultural sectors
and commodities is to be presented in an easy to understand manner, then LCA may not be
appropriate. If stakeholders (general public, farmers, and policymakers) want a single unit
comparable figure for the overall assessment of the environmental impact of agriculture, then
modifying and adopting the approach used in ecological footprinting may be a better option.
However, it must be recognised that this approach does not quantify agricultural production to
the same level of detail as an LCA.

Ecological footprint

The ecological footprint, an environmental accounting method, was introduced in the mid
1990’s by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees in their book ‘Our ecological footprint’
(Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). At that time, ecological footprinting was directed towards
understanding resource use in national economies. The method has since been modified and
refined and can now be used to present and help understand resource use within any industrial
process.

So what is an ecological footprint? In its most simple form it is an assessment of the resources
(measured in area of crops, forest, marine and built land) used by an individual, a population or
a process, expressed as a proportion of globally available resources. The classic approach
divides the global productive area (agricultural land and coastal waters) by the earth’s
population; the result, at the 2007 population level, is that each individual has 1.8 global hectare
(gha) of resources available for their use. In 2003, every person in the UK was estimated to be
using 5.6 gha of resources; three times more than the global average. This level is potentially
unsustainable and – because it is unequal - could inhibit development in other countries.

Ecological footprinting is a relatively new method and as such, has been criticised for providing
insufficient transparency for serious academic or policy use, a criticism that is compounded by
the fact that the methodology is still developing (Anon.,2005) although there is now ongoing
work to develop official standards for ecological footprinting methodology, organised by the
Global Footprint Network2. Moreover, ecological footprints do not account for outputs from a
system and therefore do not assess the environmental impacts of a process. However, despite
these limitations, ecological footprinting has found favour for its ability to portray a complex
subject in an easy-to-understand manner. Since its introduction, it has been used on a variety of
different sized populations, ranging from individual towns, through regions and islands, up to
whole countries. The underlying question which all of these studies seek to answer is: what is
the resource use, in gha, per head of population? This approach finds its ultimate home in the
Living Planet reports published by WWF, which allocate a single value per nation.

2
www.footprintnetwork.org/

10
George and Dias (2005) reviewed the concept of ecological footprinting for Defra and
concluded that the footprint is a good communication tool which the general public appear to
understand but they had reservations regarding the methodology and could not recommend the
method for policy making. Moffat et al. (anon. 2005) reviewing George and Dias agreed that the
methodology upon which ecological footprinting is based contained unresolved problems and
needed to be more transparent. However, they suggested that once the methodological problems
had been solved that ecological footprinting could contribute to sustainable developmental
strategy within the UK. In 2007, a Defra commissioned report (Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd ,
2007) recommended ‘that the UK Government does not adopt the ecological footprint as a
sustainability indicator at this stage’. One of the reasons given was the difficulty in obtaining
‘accurate data on the embodied energy of goods and services’. This is undoubtedly true for the
national and sub-national ecological accounts but does not necessarily hold true at farm level
where good data is available for the majority of inputs.

Ecological footprinting has only been developed within the last twelve years and so the volume
of research relating to agriculture and horticulture is still small and most studies use the term
ecological footprint to reflect the fact that the analysis is based on the work of Wackernagel and
Rees. Literature searches using ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar revealed a small body
of work which is listed in Table 1. For the purposes of this report, this has been divided into four
categories: data, methodology, economic & socio-economic and reviews; these divisions are
fairly arbitrary since there is some over-lap between all them. Within the data category, 15
papers report the results from LCA’s and environmental impact assessments on different
agricultural production systems. While not all are relevant to this study they do provide a body
of work against which we intend to compare and contrast our results. Of the 7 papers with the
methodology category, two deal with footprinting and two with pesticide assessment; the
Sustainable Process Index is based on the work of Krotscheck & Narodoslawsky, 1995 and the
pesticide assessment on Kovach et al., 1992.

Eleven papers or reports deal with either life cycle assessment or the environmental impact of
agricultural and horticulture crops. The majority of these papers deal with arable crops (wheat
and sugar beet) while there is almost a complete lack of data for horticultural crops apart from
tomatoes (Williams et al., 2006) and apples which appears twice. LCA data inventories can be
used in the construction of environmental footprints so a comparison of available data and
indicators is useful. Only one study on the ecological footprint of agriculture crops was found.
Cuadra and Björklund (2007) working on various crops in Nicaragua reported gha results for
beans (2.4), tomato (6.5), cabbage (7.5) and maize (3.9).

11
Table 1. Data Country Crops included Reference
Type of study age
Data
Ecological footprint 2001 Nicaragua Beans, tomato, cabbage & maize Cuadra & Björklund, 2007
Life cycle assessment 1998 Germany Sugar beet (different forms of N fertilizer Brentrup et al., 2001
Life cycle assessment 1997 Sweden Milk Cederburg & Mattsson, 2000
Life cycle assessment 2001 Spain Milk Hospido et al., 2003
Energy use 2002 Finland Milk, rye Grönroos et al., 2006
Life cycle assessment 2000 Switzerland Apple Mouron et al., 2006
Life cycle assessment 2000+ France OSR, wheat, potato, sugar beet Van der Werf, 2004
Life cycle assessment 2002 Switzerland Wheat Charles et al., 2006
Life cycle assessment 2000- EU Wheat Audsley et al. 1997
Life cycle assessment 2000+ UK Wheat, potato, OSR, lamb, milk Williams et al. 2006
Environmental impact assessment 2000+ UK Sugar beet Tzilivakis et al., 2005b
Environmental impact assessment 2004 UK Wheat, sugar beet Turley et al., 2005
Assessment of energy inputs 2000+ UK Sugar beet Tzilivakis et al., 2005a
Life cycle assessment (data for) 2000- EU Energy, fuel, machinery Neilsen & Luoma, 1999
Energy assessment 2000+ UK, EU, NZ Apple Milà I Canals et al., 2007

Methodology UK Soil quantity & quality Cowell & Clift, 2000

Life cycle assessment UK Impact of pesticides Margni et al., 2002
Life cycle assessment Denmark CO2 fluxes in cereals Soegaard et al., 2003
Footprint modelling UK Component based approach Simmons et al., 2000
Ecological footprinting Austria Sustainable process index Krotscheck & Narodoslawsky, 1995
Ecological evaluation USA Impact of pesticides Kovach et al., 1992
Environmental impact UK Impact of pesticides Maud et al., 2001
Impact assessment

Economic & socio-economic UK Organic farming & the rural economy Lobley et al., 2005
Impact analysis UK Eutrophication Pretty at al., 2003
Environmental cost UK Agriculture Pretty at al., 2000
External cost assessment UK Agriculture Hartridge & Pearce, 2001
External cost assessment

Reviews UK ACRE, 2007

Footprint of agriculture: risks & benefits UK Wadsworth et al., 2003
Environmental & socio-economic impact UK George & Dias, 2005
Ecological footprinting

12
 2.1. Review of existing data

Energy

When considering inputs into a production system, energy, is considered by many workers to
be the primary input. Energy, normally in units of gigajoules per hectare (GJ/ha) can cover
inputs as diverse as pesticides and fertilizer in addition to the more normal diesel, gas and
electricity. Bailey et al. (2003) consider that energy analysis may be the only method which
allows comparison between different agricultural systems.

Tzilivakis et al. (2005b) prepared 13 sugar beet scenarios and compared their energy
requirements. They considered crop protection, nutrition, cultivations and culture (drilling,
harvest, irrigation and transport) but excluded labour; the energy required to grow sugar beet
was between 13.1 and 24.6 GJ/ha with an average of 19.1 GJ/ha. The division between those
four categories is informative: crop protection (11.3%), nutrition (40%), cultivations (14.1%)
and culture (34.5%). Nutrition is dominated by the manufacture of ammonium-nitrate
fertilizer and culture by harvesting. Turley et al. (2005) provided a figure of 18.8 GJ/ha.

Moerschner and Gerowitt (2000) working on winter wheat in Germany calculated the total
primary energy input as 16.8 GJ/ha. Using similar categories as Tzilivakis, their sub-totals are
crop protection (2.4%), nutrition (59.8%), cultivations (20.2%) and culture (17.6%). The
culture category includes the energy used for drying the grain which can vary considerably
from year to year. Audsley et al. (1997) calculated the energy requirement for intensive
winter wheat in the UK as 27.67 GJ/ha, split into crop protection (5.4%), nutrition (49.2%),
cultivations (26.2%) and culture (19.2%) although neither cultivations and culture are directly
comparable. Turley et al. (2005) for UK crops calculated energy input as 19.2 GJ/ha while
Charles et al. (2006) in Switzerland calculated that one hectare of winter wheat yielding 6.4
t/ha required 21.6 GJ/ha.

Williams et al. (2006) compared the energy required to produce a selection of UK arable
crops on a weight basis which have been converted to an area basis using their yields. The
following data is for the primary energy used for production from one hectare: conventional
bread wheat (18.2 GJ/ha), organic bread wheat (8.2 GJ/ha), conventional oil seed rape (15.7
GJ/ha), organic oil seed rape (8.2 GJ/ha), conventional main crop potatoes (64.5 GJ/ha) and
organic main crop potatoes (40.1 GJ/ha). Although this shows that organic systems use less
energy per hectare of production, it hides the fact that organic yields are lower. In general, the
zero input of nitrogen fertilizer in organic systems is almost offset by the greater use of diesel
in cultivation and weed control. Turley et al. (2005) used a value of 12.7 GJ/ha for
conventional oil seed rape.

Williams et al (2006) also provided data on UK milk production with a conventional

approach requiring 21.2 GJ/ha and organic 7.9 GJ/ha. Since most life cycle assessments report
their findings in terms of functional units, comparisons across different studies and sectors
can be difficult to make. Cederberg and Mattsson (2000) working in Sweden, calculated that
conventional and organic dairy cows require 27.7 and 17.9 GJ for maximum milk production.
Using the Swedish maximum stocking density of 1.6 cows/ha means that conventional
systems use 44.4 GJ/ha and organic 28.6 GJ/ha; these results incorporate the additional land
required to grow forage as well as grazing land. Finish dairy herds tend to be significantly
smaller and less intensive than the UK and this is reflected in the results of Grönroos et al.

13
(2006) who reported values of 22.9 GJ/ha for conventional production and 7.3 GJ/ha for
organic milk.

Mouron et al. (2006) working on apple production in Switzerland found an average energy
use of 37.6 GJ/ha while Milà i Canals et al. (2007) reported values in the range 24.8 to 52.5
GJ/ha.

Nutrients

As the previous section has shown, the energy required to manufacture inorganic fertilizers,
especially nitrogen, dominates the energy required in crop production. Nitrogen fertilizer may
account for 40 to 60% of all energy inputs. Nitrogen input into agricultural systems can take
the form of inorganic fertilizer, aerial deposition, manures and slurries. In the UK, especially
in arable and horticultural systems, ammonium-nitrate is the commonest form of nitrogen; the
energy required to manufacture ammonium-nitrate nitrogen is usually taken to be
approximately 40 MJ/kg. The other main form of nitrogen fertilizer is urea which requires a
greater amount of energy to manufacture. The recommended rate of nitrogen application
varies with crop and soil nutrition content but can be up to 240 kg/ha/N for winter wheat and
290 kg/ha/N for cauliflower (Defra, RB209). At 40 MJ/kg/N this represents large inputs of
energy, 9.6 and 11.6 GJ/ha, respectively.

Whilst nutrients inputs into agricultural systems can be assessed in terms of the energy
required to manufacture them, the outputs are more difficult. For example, outputs of nitrogen
include aerial emissions of nitrogen oxides, nitrous oxide and ammonia, and nitrate is leached
to groundwater and the riverine systems. Various approaches exist to account for these
outputs. In addition to being pollutants, nitrous oxide and ammonia are also products so
energy values for production are also available; ammonia requires 32 to 45 GJ/t and
commercial nitrous oxide uses ammonium nitrate as a starting material so will be greater than
40 GJ/t.

Phosphate fertilizers are manufactured from mined rock phosphate with an average energy
input of 5 GJ per tonne although this energy input can be offset by subsequent processing into
triple super phosphate which can release 3.8 GJ per tonne. However for the purposes of
assessing the energy lost within the nutrient cycle, this study used 5 GJ per tonne. Potash
fertilizers are mined from sylvinite salt and production requires on average 3 GJ/t. Loss of
nutrients from the soil through leaching can be expressed as an Eutrophication Potential (EP).
EP quantifies nitrate and phosphate loss as phosphate (PO4) equivalents in kg/ha; NO3-N and
NH3-N are equivalent to 0.44 and 0.43 kg PO4, respectively.

Environmental impact

What is environmental impact and how can it be assessed? The environmental impact of
agricultural systems is assumed to be detrimental, for example, loss of nitrous oxide and
methane to the atmosphere and nitrate to groundwater. There are many problems surrounding
environmental impacts but the two major issues are: can it be measured and if so, can a value
be placed on it.

Pretty et al. (2000) calculated the total external costs of UK agriculture in 1996 at £2343M or
£208 per hectare of arable or pasture land. This included costs relating to pesticides, nitrates,
phosphates, soil erosion, damage to wildlife and their habitats and gaseous emissions. Their
study assessed the damage to the natural environment through the costs incurred in

14
monitoring and cleaning the environment to regulatory limits so did not quantify the amounts
of damage and pollutants.

Atkinson et al. (2004) calculated monetary values for some categories and products: £5,588
per tonne of nitrous oxide (N2O), £178 per tonne of ammonia (NH3) and £541 pounds per
tonne of nitrogen oxide (NOx). However, the value (and cost) of products changes with time,
so although useful as headline figures, something more is required.

Ecological footprints report their results in area, global hectares. This is an easily understood
unit of measurement so logically environmental impacts could also be reported using area.
This could be achieved by modifying the Sustainable Process Index (Krotscheck &
Narodslawsky, 1996) to calculate the area required to absorb and neutralize pollutants.

Other environmental impact indicators are Global Warming Potential (GWP) and
Acidification Potential (AP). GWP uses the 2006 IPCC methodology to rank the main gases
implicated in global warming in relation to carbon dioxide; CO2 ranks as one with methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) equating to 23 and 296, respectively. AP assesses gaseous
emissions as sulphur dioxide (SO2) equivalents; sulphur dioxide ranks as one while ammonia
equates to 2.3. These three ranking systems, while simple in concept, are easily constructed
and easy to understand and are commonly used in studies reporting on environmental impacts.

Pesticides

The term ‘pesticide’ is used in a generic sense in this report and includes all the crop
protection products, e.g. pesticides, molluscicides, fungicides and herbicides. Assessing the
environmental impact of pesticides is fraught with problems since products (and active
ingredients) change over time and with target and the environmental effects considered vary
with every method that is used to assess environmental impact.

An early attempt to overcome these problems was made by Kovach et al. (1992). They
introduced the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) which combines a toxicity rating for
individual ingredients with application volume to create an EIQ field use rating. The data on
active ingredients is continually updated as products appear on the market which has resulted
in this system being adopted world wide. The EIQ system provides a simple, transparent and
robust assessment.

A system designed for farmers was introduced by Reus and Leendertse (2000). The
Environmental Yardstick introduced the concept of environmental impact points (EIP). This
system is widely used in the Netherlands and has been credited with large reductions in
pesticide usage. Although the system is simple to use, the data that the results are based on is
hidden and includes specific parameters for soil organic matter and time and method of
application that are not applicable to the footprint application.

Maud et al. (2001) reviewed five pesticide risk indices and found wide variations in
toxological ranking and a lack of correlation between the indices and felt unable to
recommend any one index for use in the UK. Reus et al. (2002) as part of the EU CAPER
project compared and evaluated eight risk indicators developed in Europe. They also found
differences in the rankings of 15 pesticides as a result of the different environmental
indicators used and concluded that a harmonised pesticide risk indicator was required for
Europe.

15
Lewis et al. (2003) proposes the p-EMA software system, a successor to the EMA system,
which allows a very detailed approach to assessing the effects of pesticide applications. The
model uses data on the environmental impact of the active ingredients and details of local soil
and weather conditions to produce a detailed risk assessment at field and farm level. This
approach is suitable for calculating the effect of individual applications at farm level and for
analysis of case studies but is too detailed and complex for footprint studies which require
more of an overview.

Williams at al. (2006) adopted a simple approach and quantified the active ingredients applied
to different cropping systems. Unfortunately this cannot take the toxicity of the ingredients
into account and is therefore not suitable for assessing environmental impacts of different
crops.

Models have been developed under the EUs HAIR (Harmonised Indicators of Environmental
Risk) project to assess pesticide risk. However, the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) have
some concerns that they may be overly simplistic as many factors can affect the degree of risk
(and environmental impact) which would include: timing of application, use of mitigation
factors such as buffer zones and field margins, degree of operator training and maintenance of
application equipment, and have yet to finalise a position on the suitability of these models. In
addition, PSD use a specialist stakeholder group to advise them on environmental risks arising
from pesticide use and in general, they are extremely cautious about reducing measurement of
risk to a simple mathematical exercise, feeling it can only be truly reflected by considering the
way in which pesticides are used (Anon, personal communication).

Water

Water quantity is not included within the ecological footprint although the energy required to
power irrigation pumps is. Water use is coming under increasing scrutiny as a result of the
Water Framework Directive and climate change and agriculture, and especially horticulture
use large amounts of water so it is included as one of the environmental indicators and is
quantified in litres per hectare per year. No attempt has been made to identify the source of
the water although water supplied from a farmer’s own reservoir and recycled water could be
assumed to have a lower environmental impact that potable water supplied by the water
companies.

Labour

Labour is not normally included in either LCA or footprint studies since it is not strictly a
physical input. However, labour is an essential aspect of all production systems, especially
many horticultural systems where it is one the biggest inputs. Indirectly, the amount of labour
required to grow one hectare of crop can have substantial effects, both positive and negative,
on the local environment especially within areas of high horticultural production. This is
discussed in more details in sections 5.1.3, 5.1.4 and 5.3.2.

16
 2.2. Environmental footprint

The term environmental footprint is a relatively new one and as yet does not have a precise
definition. Both The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE, 2007) and
the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC, 2003) have used the
term to describe the overall impact on the environment but without attaching any quantifiable
indicators. Likewise, many commercial organisations use the term, along with carbon
footprint, to describe their overall environmental impact in terms of carbon dioxide, carbon
dioxide equivalents or even their waste production.

However, in this study the term ‘environmental footprint’ has a precise definition being the
average scaled value of six quantified environmental indicators, as listed below:

• Ecological footprint
• Pesticide usage
• Global warning potential
• Eutrophication and acidification potential
• Water use
• Labour use

The outputs from these six indicators are all expressed on a ‘per hectare basis’. The study will
initially draw up standard ecological footprints for the production systems, which will
quantify the resources required to produce the commodity and will include: direct and in-
direct energy, seed, manures, manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides and materials used in
the construction of machinery and infrastructure. The environmental impact of pesticide usage
will be assessed using the environmental impact quotient of pesticides (EIQ) system.
Pollutants and gaseous emissions will use the standard global warming potential,
eutrophication and acidification potentials.

Data has been drawn from standard texts, NGO’s (for example IPCC) and government
statistics. The aim of this study is not to present a detailed analysis of a single production
system but to present an overview of the environmental burdens from agriculture. The results
have been calculated on an area basis and using Defra statistics have been aggregated to
greater scales, e.g. region and country. The results are presented individually in tables and
combined as radar graphs.

The term ‘environmental footprint’ must not be confused with an ecological footprint (EF),
discussed earlier, which is a well defined accounting tool that measures the resources required
to sustain a populations consumption or produce a product and provides a good basis for
understanding sustainable development and is but one of the six indicators used in the
environmental footprint. Ecological footprints do not account for outputs from a system but
base their assessment on the productively of different land types (cropland, pasture, built land
etc.) and CO2 emissions so can only contribute to an overall assessment of environmental
impact.

2.3. Conclusions

There exists a large body of work on the individual environmental impacts within different
agricultural systems and years of research have provided detailed measurements on
inventories as diverse as nitrate leaching, ammonia emissions and the production of methane

17
and oxides of nitrogen. The energy requirements (and subsequent production of carbon
dioxide) of the main agriculture systems have been studied as concerns over the cost of
energy and the effects of combusting fossil fuels have become apparent. Schemes for
calculating the toxicity and effect of pesticides have been available for the past ten to twenty
years but their sheer diversity has prevented any of them becoming the standard method. New
accounting methods, for example life cycle assessment has recently allowed the
environmental impacts of individual agricultural systems and products to be quantified as a
whole for the first time. What no process has yet tried to do is to combine all these different
analyses to provide one overall assessment of environmental burdens.

The reasons for not attempting to do so are obvious. The accuracy of the results is reduced as
more indicators are considered and it is difficult to express the results of multiple indicators
using the same scale. However, the environmental footprint approach will attempt to use a
single value, which incorporates six diverse indicators, to represent an agricultural or
horticultural system and will do so using a unit that is easy to understand, the hectare. It will
be easy to criticise the environmental footprint for lack of accuracy in some areas and lack of
transparency in others but if it can be successfully used to illustrate and compare the
environmental burdens of different sectors at different scales in an easy to understand way
then its development may prove useful.

18
3. The Environmental Footprint

3.1. Methods

The environmental footprint is a collection of six existing indicators combined to present an

overall assessment of environmental impacts. The boundary for the environmental footprint is
the farm gate, this includes the infrastructure and energy required to store, dry and cool the
commodity but excludes all packaging, both transport and point of sale. The environmental
footprint should not be confused with an ‘ecological footprint’ which is but one of six
indicators:

3.1.1. Ecological footprint

The term ‘ecological footprint’ was introduced by Wackernagel and Rees in their 1996 book
‘Our Ecological Footprint’, in which they attempted to analyse human impact upon the
environment by calculating the land area and resources required to sustain a population. The
ecological footprint measures the bioproductive area required to supply the resources needed
to supply any given consumption. In this study the ecological footprint assesses the land
productively and resources required to produce one hectare of an agricultural commodity.
These resources come in three main forms:

• Bioproductive area (the land required to grow the commodity);

• Material flows (the physical resources required to grow the commodity, e.g.
infrastructure (buildings and concrete), machinery, seed, fertilizers, pesticides and
packaging;
• Energy flows (the energy needed to grow the commodity, e.g. direct - diesel, indirect -
embodied energy of fertiliser)

To enable these resources to be accounted for in the ecological footprint, they need to be
related to a biophysical area. For energy, direct and indirect, the ecological footprint only
accounts for CO2, as this is the only emission from fossil energy use that has so far been
directly linked to biophysical area (e.g. sequestered by growing green plants) and for which
there is a sufficient body of research.

To relate CO2 to an area it is assumed that newly planted forest area is used to absorb the CO2
emissions. The world average CO2 absorption rate per hectare of world average forest is used
and converted to global hectares (gha). Alternative approaches have been tried, but this has
proved to be the most conservative approach. It is important to note that the ecological
footprint excludes a number of inputs, which include: the share of CO2 absorbed through the
oceans, other emissions that contain carbon like methane (CH4), other green house gases like
nitrous oxide (N2O), water and labour use.

Material flows includes the use of growing media for raising cauliflower and lettuce seedlings
for transplanting. Since the horticultural industry uses a combination of peat based and peat
free growing media, this report does not take into account any landscape impacts or loss of
CO2 sequestration that extracting peat for horticultural use may incur. This same approach
excludes the landscape impacts and greenhouse gas emissions that result from fossil fuel or
aggregates production.

19
 3.1.2. Pesticides

The EIQ method (Kovach et al., 1992) is used to quantify the environmental impact of all
pesticide applications. This method reduces the environmental impact information for an
active ingredient to a single value by combining the three principal components of
agricultural production systems: a farm worker component (applicator and picker), a
consumer component (health and leaching) and an ecological component (fish, birds, bees and
beneficials). Each component is given equal weight in the final analysis, but within each
component, individual factors are weighted differently. Coefficients are used to give
additional weight to individual factors on a one to five scale. Factors carrying the most weight
are multiplied by five (applicator and beneficials), medium-impact factors (bees and birds) are
multiplied by three, and those factors considered to have the least impact are multiplied by
one. A consistent rule throughout is that the impact potential of a specific pesticide on an
individual environmental factor is equal to the toxicity of the chemical multiplied by the
potential for exposure. Stated simply, environmental impact is equal to toxicity multiplied by
exposure. For example, fish toxicity is calculated by determining the inherent toxicity of the
compound to fish multiplied by the likelihood of the fish encountering the pesticide. In this
manner, compounds that are toxic to fish but short-lived have lower impact values than
compounds that are toxic and long-lived. A field rating for each pesticide is achieved by
multiplying the EIQ value by the weight of the active ingredient that is applied.

EIQ value * rate of active ingredient * application rate = EIQ Field Use Rating

Example for Makhteshim’s Alpha Linuron in potato

EIQ 40.3 * 0.5 * 4.2 l ha-1 = 84.63 ha-1

3.1.3. Global warming potential (GWP)

Although the full IPCC basket of green houses gases includes hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3),
trifluoromethyl sulphur pentafluoride (SF5CF3), halogenated ethers and some other
halocarbons not covered by the Montreal Protocol, this analysis concentrates on the main
three gases emitted from agriculture: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Table 2. Greenhouse gases and their warming potential

Burden Global warming potential
CO2 (carbon dioxide) 1
CH4 (methane) 23
N2O (nitrous oxide) 296

GWP is used to assess the abilities of different greenhouse gases to trap heat in the
atmosphere and is based on the radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas
relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount
removed from the atmosphere over a given number of years) relative to that of CO2. The
GWP provides a basis for converting emissions of various gases into a common measure,
which allows the radiative impacts of various greenhouse gases to be aggregated into a single
measure, the CO2 equivalent over a 100 year span. In 2001, the IPCC updated its estimates of
GWPs for key greenhouse gases (Table 2).

20
 3.1.4. Eutrophication and acidification potential

Eutrophication Potential (EP) is defined as the potential of nutrients to cause over-fertilization

of water and soil which in turn can result in increased growth of biomass. It is quantified in
terms of phosphate equivalents using the factors in Table 3.

Table 3. The eutrophication potential of selected nutrients

Burden Eutrophication potential

(as PO4)

PO4 (phosphate) 1.00

NO3 (nitrate) 0.42
NH3 (ammonia) 0.33
NOx (oxides of nitrogen) 0.13

Acidification is a consequence of acids (and other compounds which can be transformed into
acids) being emitted to the atmosphere and subsequently deposited in surface soils and water.
Increased acidity of these environments can result in negative consequences for coniferous
trees (forest dieback) and the death of fish in addition to increased corrosion of manmade
structures (buildings, vehicles etc.). Acidification Potential (AP) is based on the contributions
of SO2, NOx and NH3 and is quantified in terms of sulphate equivalents using the factors in
Table 4.

Table 4. The acidification potential of selected nutrients

Burden Acidification potential

(as SO2)

SO2 (sulphur dioxide) 1.00

NOx (oxides of nitrogen) 0.70
NH3 (ammonia) 1.88

The eutrophication and acidification factors are based on the work of Azapagic (2003 &
2004) and are combined in this report. The results are reported as kg ha-1.

3.1.5. Water

The majority of water use in agricultural and horticultural crops is during the summer when
there may potentially be a shortage in supply. If, as a result of climate change, summers are to
be longer and drier, then water shortages and /or the increasing cost of water may have an
environmental impact. Total water use is reported in litres per hectare per year.

3.1.6. Labour.

Labour is not strictly an environmental indicator however it is essential part of horticultural

production systems where it is one the biggest inputs. Indirectly, the amount of labour
required to grow one hectare of crop can have substantial effects, both positive and negative,

21
on the local environment especially within areas of high horticultural production. Total labour
(full time plus part time and casual) is reported in hours per hectare per year. A full socio-
economic analysis of the impacts of labour can be found in section 5.

3.1.7. Calculation of the overall environmental footprint

The six indicators that form the environmental footprint use the same base unit, the hectare,
however, the values that the indicators can adopt varies greatly. The environmental footprint
was created by taking the results from the individual indicators and converting them to a
relative value between 0 and 100. This allow the individual indicators within the
environmental footprint to be compared and their influence to be assessed. In all cases the
greater the value, the greater the environmental impact. Table 5 lists the indicators with their
respective minimum and maximum values. The six indicators have the same weight in the
final analysis although in the future it may be possible to allocate different weights to
individual indicators if their comparable environmental ranking could be assessed and agreed.
In conclusion, the environmental footprint is the non-weighted mean of six indicators and is
expressed on a hectare basis but has no other units.

Table 5. The six indicators used in the environmental footprint

Indicator Unit Minimum Maximum

value value

Ecological footprint gha ha-1 0 25

Pesticide EIQ rating kg ha-1 0 250
Global warming potential kg ha-1 0 75,000
Eutrophication + acidification potential kg ha-1 0 200
Water litres ha-1 0 3,000,000
Labour hours ha-1 0 1,000

3.2. Approach

Life cycle assessment inventories were drawn up for each commodity to quantify the inputs
and outputs for each production system (annex A). The data was then used to calculate the
different indicators contained within the environmental footprint, using methodology
compatible with the quality assurance standards developed by the global footprint network
and industry standards.

The environmental footprints are designed to represent an average commodity grown in an

average year in the UK. The data used to construct the inventory sheets was, where possible,
obtained from open sources, e.g. IPCC, Defra, The Office for National Statistics, Farm
Management Handbooks and Nix etc. Where public data was unavailable, peer-reviewed
papers, published scientific results or interviews with the main stakeholders was substituted.
All sources of data or information are referenced in Annex A.

Once the environmental footprint of a commodity had been calculated, existing Defra
statistics on land use and production (Defra, June census) were used to aggregate the results
into region, country and UK scale. This secondary analysis takes the value of the

22
environmental footprint and multiplies it by the commodities land use (in ha) to provide an
overall value for environmental burden. This approach is simple and robust for arable and
horticulture cropping and allows the environmental burden of different sectors and regions
within the UK to be identified, compared and assessed. Some rounding up/down errors are
present.

3.3. Results

This section of the report considers and discusses the results in two different ways. Firstly by
the indicator used and secondly, by commodity.

3.3.1. Ecological footprint

Table 6. The ecological footprint, energy input and EIQ pesticide rating

Commodity Ecological footprint Energy input Pesticide EIQ rating

(gha ha-1) (GJ ha-1) (kg ha-1)

Apple 6.60 16.9 205

Carrot 6.58 25.8 109
Cauliflower 6.38 24.3 111
Lettuce* 21.44 424.8 (7765**) 165
Narcissi 7.43 41.8 154
Onion 6.46 20.1 140
Strawberry* 13.02 178.2 (3818**) 178
Potato 7.38 44.5 134
Sugar beet 6.34 17.4 124
Winter wheat 6.21 19.5 83
Lamb 6.29 25.3 106
Milk 10.95 45.4 74
*Protected cropping
**With soil sterilants

The ecological footprint contains four main inputs: transport, energy for water application,
materials and waste, and crop land. The value for crop land is based on global productively
and is the biggest influence in the footprint of all the commodities except protected crops; in
this study, average arable and horticultural land is allocated a value of 5.82 while pasture land
for dairying and sheep is assumed to be less productive and is allocated of 5.04.

The ecological footprint of all the field grown commodities (carrot, cauliflower, Narcissi,
onion, potato, sugar beet and winter wheat) are fairly similar, winter wheat has the smallest
(6.2) and potato and Narcissi the greatest (7.4), however in overall terms of this report, these
commodities can be considered to have the same environmental impact. This is unsurprising
since they all use the same basic agronomic approach and machinery and any differences are
the result of different applications of fertilizers and pesticides.

23
The two livestock commodities have different ecological footprints which is the result of
different production systems. The production of milk is an intensive system which requires
high inputs of infrastructure, feed and energy while in contrast, sheep production is an
extensive system requiring less inputs. The ecological footprint of milk is almost double that
of lamb although large variations could be expected under different production systems in
different parts of the UK. For example, sheep raised on upland systems will have lower
ecological footprints in comparison to lowland flocks and the same is true in milk production
where stocking rates and expected yields can have an effect on footprint values; this remains
an area where further refinement is required.

The two protected horticulture sectors both have high ecological footprints which are due the
physical inputs contained within the infrastructure, in fact these two sectors are the only ones
where the value of the infrastructure is greater than the value of the crop land required to grow
the commodity. The infrastructure, apart from polythene, for both polytunnels and
glasshouses is accounted for as 1/30 of the total per year which assumes a 30 year lifetime
however the very large quantities of materials and associated CO2 emissions mean that their
influence is still great. Polythene is assumed to have a four year replacement cycle and is
accounted for as ¼ of the total per year.

Energy

The 12 commodities can be divided into two categories on their energy usage: protected crops
and field crops. The two protected crops have an energy requirement far in excess of the field
crops; this is due to both the embedded energy in the infrastructure and to higher energy
demand in the growing systems. Energy demand within the field based crops varies threefold
with apple (16.9 MJ ha-1) having the lowest demand and milk (45.4 MJ ha-1) having the
highest but this variation is still minor in comparison to the protected crops.

Comparing our energy input figures with those reported in the review (section 2) is a useful, if
difficult exercise. Difficult because it is not always possible to ensure that the reporting is
based on the same criteria. This is demonstrated by the energy required in apple production.
Mouron et al. (2006) reported an average value for Swiss apple production of 37.6 MJ ha-1
(range 23.5 to 52.8 MJ ha-1) which is more than double our value of 16.9 MJ ha-1. Although
they did not publish their inventory sheets, we assume that this difference is due to different
scale and production systems in Switzerland. This single example illustrates the difficulty is
comparing systems without recourse to the full data set.

The review contains two values for the energy required in sugar beet production of 19.1 and
18.8 MJ ha-1 which compares well with our value of 17.4 MJ ha-1. The same is true for potato,
39.8 MJ ha-1 against our 44.5 MJ ha-1 and winter wheat, 16.8, 19.2 and 21.6 MJ ha-1 against
our 19.5 MJ ha-1. However the dairy industry has diverse values of 22.9 and 44.4 MJ ha-1
reported in the literature against our 45.4 MJ ha-1.

3.3.2. Pesticide EIQ rating

Horticultural crops, on average, receive more sprays and greater amounts of pesticides
compared to arable crops (Table 6); excluding soil fumigants, the average EIQ field rating
was 152 kg ha-1. Apples and strawberries receive the greatest amounts of pesticides while and
carrots and cauliflowers the least. The use of soil fumigants in strawberries under polythene
and especially in protected lettuce has a major environmental impact and if included increases

24
both the EIQ field rating and the energy input into the production system. This increased
energy consumption is reflected in higher CO2 emissions and therefore a higher ecological
footprint. Since the inclusion of soil fumigants would have disguised the impact of pesticide
use of the other ten commodities and is not used in all protected crops, the decision was taken
to exclude them from the environmental footprint; further discussion of this subject can be
found in the individual commodity sections.

The average EIQ field rating for the arable commodities was 114 kg ha-1 and reflects the
lower use of pesticides on winter wheat. Pesticides in milk production are related to the
management of grass for silage, and in lamb production to insecticides using in dips; the
average for the livestock commodities was 90 kg ha-1.

3.3.3. Global warming potential

The sources of the three greenhouse gases presented here are very different. Carbon dioxide is
produced at every stage of resource production and use. Although small amounts are emitted
at every stage of the manufacturing process, it is manufacture and construction within the
protected crops sectors that dominate CO2 production. In addition, the manufacture of
nitrogen fertilizer contributes significant amounts of CO2, being up to 70% of the field grown
crops, with diesel use accounting for the majority of the remainder.

Table 7. Individual greenhouse gases equivalents contribution to GWP (kg ha-1)

Greenhouse gas
Sector/commodity Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide GWP

Apple 2,475 260 2,735

Carrot 2,888 511 3,431
Cauliflower 2,228 1,494 3,853
Lettuce* 55,617 1,681 57,298
Narcissi 5,639 407 6,065
Onion 2,421 784 3,271
Strawberry* 21,020 464 21,511
Potato 5,817 1,119 7,041
Sugar beet 1,967 940 2,960
Winter wheat 1,497 1,170 2,782
Lamb 1,356 3,059 3,775 8,190
Milk 9,196 6,187 4,098 19,481
*Protected cropping

Methane is primarily a by product of enteric fermentation in ruminants so unsurprisingly only

the two livestock based commodities, milk and lamb, contribute in this category. Production
of milk has double the effect of lamb production in relation to this category. Where methane
is produced, it makes a serious contribution to the overall GWP .

Nitrous oxide is produced by the three sources within this study: application of nitrogen
fertilizers, tillage of agricultural land and emission from manures. The production of nitrous
oxide from field crops is proportional to the amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied, so crops
like winter wheat, potato and cauliflower which have high nitrogen requirements tend to emit
more nitrous oxide in comparison to crops like carrot and onion which have a lower

25
requirement for nitrogen. In addition to methane, manures are also responsible for emitting
nitrous oxide which accounts for the large amounts of nitrous oxide from the livestock
commodities.

3.3.4. Eutrophication and acidification potential

Within the field grown commodities, eutrophication and acidification are mainly products of
fertilizer use and amounts are directly related to amounts of applied fertilizer, especially
phosphorus and to a lesser extent nitrogen. Within the livestock sectors, ammonia released
from manures is an additional burden and is responsible for the large amounts emitted from
milk production. Potato ranks highly since it requires high levels of both phosphorus and
nitrogen, both of which are leached into surface waters while the production of both lamb and
milk are dominated by ammonia losses.

Nitrate leachate is assumed to be 15% of applied nitrogen fertilizer and is based on Silgram et
al. (2001). Phosphate leachate is assumed to be 6.5% of applied phosphorus fertilizer and is
based on Johnes et al. (1996).

Table 8. Individual eutrophication and acidification potentials (kg ha-1)

Greenhouse gas
Sector/commodity Eutrophication Acidification Eutrophication &
acidification
potential

Apple 3.5 4.5 8.0

Carrot 17.0 6.8 23.8
Cauliflower 21.6 9.5 31.1
Lettuce* 27.5 8.5 36.0
Narcissi 6.4 9.3 15.7
Onion 19.1 8.3 27.4
Strawberry* 5.6 4.5 10.1
Potato 33.4 13.8 47.2
Sugar beet 13.7 8.3 22.0
Winter wheat 3.2 9.1 12.3
Lamb 18.3 27.3 45.6
Milk 63.3 129.6 192.9
*Protected cropping

3.3.5. Water

The quantity of water used per hectare varies greatly. Rain fed winter wheat uses the smallest
amount, just 2000 litres for crop spraying, while the two protected crops, which rely entirely
on irrigation, use more than 2,000,000 litres. The production of milk requires four times more
water than lamb but even so the two livestock commodities rank tenth and eleventh,
respectively, out of the twelve commodities in this report.

26
The volume of water applied as irrigation attributed to the field grown horticultural crops plus
sugar beet and potato in this study is based on a UK average under ‘normal’ climatic
conditions. Longer and drier growing seasons could result in greater amounts of water being
applied as irrigation which would decrease the impact of water use in comparison to the
protected crops. Using the existing values for the environmental footprint but doubling the
water use of the irrigated crops results in a 15% in the value of the environmental footprint
but does not really impact on the ranking of the commodities; both carrot and cauliflower
move up one while strawberry drops two. However, in terms of the volumes of water
involved the changes are dramatic; doubling the water use on irrigated crops increases total
water use from 1,623,119 megalitres to 3,085,214 megalitres in the UK.

3.3.6. Labour

The amount of labour required to grow one hectare of commodity in one year varies greatly
and reflects the greater labour demand of horticultural crops. The range is wide with winter
wheat having the lowest labour requirement of 12 hrs ha-1 yr-1 up to protected strawberry
which requires 954 hrs ha-1 yr-1.

Labour requirement can roughly be divided into four categories: (1) Arable commodities with
an average requirement of 34 hours, onion could also fit into this category; (2) livestock
commodities with an average requirement of 84 hours; (3) field grown horticultural
commodities with an average of 136 hours; (4) orchard and protected commodities with an
average of 574 hours.

As previously stated, labour is not an indicator that is normally used in environmental studies
and it’s inclusion here has been questioned by a number of reviewers, who would have
preferred to have excluded it. However, in defence, the use of labour as an indirect measure of
environmental impact does add a dimension to the analysis which otherwise would have been
missed, namely the impact of housing and infrastructure for immigrant horticultural workers.
Whether labour as an indicator should be included in the environmental or socio-economic
footprint is a question that can be discussed by a wider audience in future years.

Excluding labour from the analysis does result in minor changes to the ranking of the
commodities; cauliflower and onion go up one and two places, respectively, while strawberry
drops three places. Horticulture’s share of the total environmental footprints drops from
0.98% to 0.86%.

27
 3.3.7. Overall results and scaling
Table 9. The ecological footprint, EIQ rating, GWP, EAP, water, labour requirement, area and commodity and UK environmental footprints

Commodity Data Ecological EIQ GWP EAP Water Labour Environmental Area of UK Environmental
footprint rating footprint (ha) crop (ha) footprint (UK)

Apple Observed 6.6 205 2,735 8.0 413,200 452

Scaled 26 82.0 3.6 4 14 45.2 29.171 4,582 133,661
Carrot Observed 6.6 109 3,431 23.8 518,600 123
Scaled 26 43.6 4.6 12 17 12 19.330 9,512 183,869
Onion Observed 6.5 140 3,271 27.4 503,800 49
Scaled 26 56.0 4.4 14 17 5 20.266 8,561 173,495
Cauliflower Observed 6.4 111 3,853 31.1 501,700 142
Scaled 26 44.4 5.1 16 17 14 20.255 9,925 201,032
Lettuce Observed 21.4 165 57,298 36.0 2,300,500 317
Scaled 86 66.0 76.4 18 77 32 59.090 252 14,891
Strawberry Observed 13.0 178 21,511 10.1 2,303,200 954
Scaled 52 71.2 28.7 5 77 95 54.864 3,782 207,496
Narcissi Observed 7.4 154 6,065 15.7 107,000 229
Scaled 30 61.6 8.1 8 4 23 22.287 3,900 86,920
Potato Observed 7.4 134 7,041 47.2 1,203,000 61
Scaled 30 53.6 9.4 24 40 6 27.051 138,264 3,740,226
Sugar beet Observed 6.3 124 2,960 22.0 503,800 28
Scaled 25 49.6 3.9 11 17 3 18.250 128,901 2,352,443
Wheat Observed 6.2 83 2,782 12.3 2,000 12
Scaled 25 33.2 3.7 6 0 1 11.528 1,828,376 21,076,909
Lamb Observed 6.3 106 8,190 45.5 23,609 85
Scaled 25 42.4 10.9 23 1 9 18.422 1,572,166 28,962,433
Milk Observed 10.9 74 19,481 192.9 95,580 84
Scaled 44 29.6 26.0 97 3 8 24.568 1,313,927 45,420,413

28
 3.3.8. Dessert apple

The average crop is based on the Cox cultivar and assumes a relatively low density of 1250
trees per hectare. The production system assumes the use of 52 kg ha-1 of nitrogen fertilizer to
achieve a yield of 15 t ha-1. Although the inputs of physical resources in the footprint analysis
are based on a mature orchard, the resources required to establish the orchard are included,
depreciated over an assumed 30 year lifetime. The full inventory sheet is in annex A.

Table 10. The environmental impact of dessert apple

Commodity: Dessert apple

Ecological footprint: 6.6 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 205 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 2,735 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 8.01 kg ha-1
Water: 413,200 litres ha-1
Labour: 452 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 29.171
Area: 4,582 ha
Production: 113,100 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £43 M
Value per hectare: £9,385
Environmental footprint (UK): 133,661
Value of crop per footprint unit: £322

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint for a hectare of dessert apples is 29.2 which is higher than all the
field grown commodities in this study but lower than protected crops and milk. In terms of
physical inputs, apples are similar to the other field grown commodities, however, they do
receive the highest amounts of pesticides which together with their high labour demand

29
means that overall apple ranks 4/12 of the commodities in this study. Apples can also incur
additional energy inputs in the form of cooled storage which are not accounted for in this
study and which would add to their environmental footprint.

The area of dessert apples grown in the UK is small, only 4,582 ha, so consequently the
sector’s overall environmental impact is also small, ranking 10/12; dessert apples contribute
just 0.13% to the overall environmental burden of the commodities in this study. In addition,
dessert apples are a valuable crop at £9,385 per hectare making their value per footprint unit
£322 which ranks them in the middle of the other horticultural crops and higher than any of
the arable or livestock commodities.

Table 11. National and regional environmental burden of top fruit in 2006

Country / Region Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 8 233
North-West 77 2,246
Yorkshire & Humber 60 1,750
East Midlands 170 4,959
West Midlands 5,457 159,186
Eastern 2,567 74,882
London 23 671
South-East 9,139 266,594
South-West 3,014 87,921
Wales 359 10,472
Scotland 39 1,138
Northern Ireland 1,447 42,210
Total 22,360 652,264

Defra’s regional statistics do not separate dessert apples from general top fruit so Table 11
applies the footprint for the dessert apple to all UK grown top fruit which also includes pears,
plums and cherries. The environmental burden of top fruit at the UK level is very small,
contributing 0.66% of the total environmental burden of the commodities in this study. Top
fruit production is concentrated in the south and the west of England but its contribution to the
regional environmental burdens is also small, being 3.7% in the South-East and 1.8% in the
West Midlands.

Cider apple orchards, which extend to approximately 12,000 ha3, are not included in this
study, however lower pesticide applications and a smaller labour requirement would result in
a lower environmental footprint in comparison to dessert apples.

3
Fresh Produce Journal, 7th December 2007

30
 3.3.9. Carrot

The average crop assumes a plough based tillage system using 60 kg ha-1 of nitrogen fertilizer
to achieve a yield of 75 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 12. The environmental impact of carrot

Commodity: Carrot
Ecological footprint: 6.58 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 109 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 3,431 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 23.8 kg ha-1
Water: 518,600 litres ha-1
Labour: 123 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 19.33
Area: 9,512 ha
Production: 718,500 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £166.9 M
Value per hectare: £17,546
Environmental footprint (UK): 183,869
Value of crop per footprint unit: £908

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of carrot is 19.3 which is slightly lower than the 19.9 average for
all field grown crops but higher than wheat and sugar beet. Carrots have a slightly higher than
average demand for pesticides but lower than average demand for fertilizers. The
environmental footprint calculation includes irrigation using 500,000 litres of water per
hectare so rain fed crops will have a lower footprint and crops receiving greater amounts of
water will have a higher footprint. Carrot ranks 7/12 in terms of environmental impact but
only minor changes in pesticide or water use could result in a move of two places either up or
down the rankings.

31
As with the other field grown horticultural crops, the area of carrots grown in the UK is small
and represents only 1.6% of the farmed area in this study. Carrots also have a very low
environmental burden at the UK scale, accounting for just 0.18% of the total environmental
footprint of the commodities in this study which ranks it 8/12. Carrots are the third most
valuable crop in this study at £17,546 per hectare and have the highest value per
environmental footprint unit at £908.

Regional statistics are not available for carrots on their own so Table 14 shows the results for
carrot, onion, and brassica roots together.

32
 3.3.10. Onion (dry bulb)

The average crop assumes a plough based tillage system using 125 kg ha-1 of nitrogen
fertilizer to achieve a yield of 42 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 13. The environmental impact of onion

Commodity: Onion (dry bulb)

Ecological footprint: 6.46 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 140 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 3,271 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 27.4 kg ha-1
Water: 503,800 litres ha-1
Labour: 49 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 20.266
Area: 8,561 ha
Production: 383,400 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £33.6 M
Value per hectare: £3,925 ha-1
Environmental footprint (UK): 173,495
Value of crop per footprint unit: £194

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of bulb onion is 20.3 which is comparable to other field
vegetable crops but higher than wheat or sugar beet. The biggest influences are the
manufacture and environmental impact of pesticides but overall onion has a low
environmental footprint.

In comparison to the other commodities in this study, the area and environmental footprint of
onion are small; by area onion ranks 8/12 and accounts for just 0.17% of the UK
environmental footprint. The monetary value of carrots, in respect to their environmental

33
burden, is at the lower end of the horticultural commodities at £194 but higher than the arable
and livestock commodities.

Table 14. Regional and national footprint for carrot, onion and root brassicas in 2006

Country / Region Area Environmental footprint

(ha)

North-East 638 12,631

North-West 1,252 24,787
Yorkshire & Humber 2,452 48,545
East Midlands 1,182 23,401
West Midlands 2,208 43,714
Eastern 1,374 27,202
London 0 0
South-East 98 1,940
South-West 4,421 87,527
Wales 0 0
Scotland 7,665 151,752
Northern Ireland 224 4,435
Total 21,514 425,934

Defra’s regional statistics group carrot, onion, and brassica roots together. Table 14 applies
the average environmental footprint of carrot and onion to the whole grouping. Although this
approach is less than ideal, it does allow some regional comparisons to be made.
Unfortunately, the inclusion of root brassicas includes those grown for fodder which means
that it is not possible to separate the horticultural and arable crops, however, since all three
commodities have low environmental footprints, this is probably not critical. We assume that
large areas in South-West England and Scotland are due to fodder crops while the eastern
counties of England are predominantly onions and carrots.

These crops account for 0.37% of the UK’s environmental footprint with the highest regional
contribution in Scotland at 0.9%.

34
 3.3.11. Cauliflower

The average crop assumes a plough based tillage system using 250 kg ha-1 of nitrogen
fertilizer to achieve a yield of 13 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 15. The environmental impact of cauliflower

Commodity: Cauliflower
Ecological footprint: 6.4 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 111 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 3,853 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 31.1 kg ha-1
Water: 501,700 litres ha-1
Labour: 142 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 20.255
Area: 9,925 ha
Production: 132,600 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £47.6 M
Value per hectare: £4,796
Environmental footprint (UK): 201,032
Value of crop per footprint unit: £237

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of cauliflower is 20.3 which is very close to the average of the
field vegetable crops and slightly higher than the average of the arable crops. The two biggest
influences in the environmental footprint are pesticides and the ecological footprint
(machinery and fertilizers). Looking across the boundaries of the indicators, nitrogen
fertiliser, both in terms of the energy used to manufacture it and the nitrous oxide emitted in
its use is a big influence in the footprint.

35
Of the horticultural crops in this study, cauliflower has the largest area of 9,925 hectares.
However, a reasonably low environmental footprint means that the sector’s environmental
impact is less than strawberry, which has approximately a third of the area. By commodity,
cauliflower ranks 8/12 and in terms of sector, ranks 7/12 accounting for 0.2% of the UK’s
environmental footprint. Cauliflower is a reasonably valuable crop with a value per footprint
unit of £237, which is at the lower end of the horticultural commodities but still greater than
the arable and livestock commodities.

Table 16. National and regional environmental impact of other field vegetables in 2006

Country / Region Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 37 749
North-West 4,612 93,416
Yorkshire & Humber 2,695 54,587
East Midlands 17,551 355,496
West Midlands 4,358 88,271
Eastern 19,162 388,126
London 0 0
South-East 5,605 113,529
South-West 4,299 87,076
Wales 420 8,507
Scotland 11,314 229,165
Northern Ireland 1,385 28,053
Total 71,438 1,446,977

Defra’s regional statistics group cauliflower together with the other brassicas: Brussels
sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower, as well as other crops like leeks and field lettuce. Since all
these crops have similar requirements, it is reasonable to apply the environmental footprint for
cauliflower to this whole grouping (Table 16). Since these crops are all horticultural crops, it
is no surprise that the East Midlands and the Eastern region have the greatest area and largest
environmental footprints, being 3.8% and 3.6% respectively of their regional environmental
burden. At the UK scale, this grouping accounts for 1.3% of the environmental footprint.

36
 3.3.12. Protected lettuce

The average crop assumes three crops a year using 207 kg ha-1 of nitrogen fertilizer to achieve
a yield of 95 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 17. The environmental impact of protected lettuce

Commodity: Lettuce (protected)

Ecological footprint: 21.4 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 165 (7765 including soil fumigation) kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 57,298 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 36.0 kg ha-1
Water: 2,300,500 litres ha-1
Labour: 317 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 59.09
Area: 252 ha
Production: 8,100 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £12.3 M
Value per hectare: £48,810
Environmental footprint (UK): 14,891
Value of crop per footprint unit: £826

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of protected lettuce is 59.1 which is the highest of the crops in
this study. Of the six indicators used, protected lettuce was always in the top four and topped
the ranking in terms of ecological footprint and global warming potential. The biggest
influence in the environmental footprint is infrastructure, both in the materials used in the
manufacture of the glasshouse and ancillaries, and in the carbon dioxide emitted during the
production process. However, in purely environmental terms, it is the omission of soil
fumigants that stands out.

37
A large section of the industry still use soil fumigants so if an assessment of these is to be
included in the footprint, it is necessary to extrapolate from the current position. The current
scale for the EIQ pesticide rating assumes a maximum of 250 which is scaled back to 100.
The EIQ pesticide rating for protected lettuce which includes soil fumigation would be 7765
which after scaling would represent 3106, giving a revised footprint of 567 compared to 60.5.
Whilst this is not a particularly good approach, it does demonstrate the impact that soil
fumigants would have on the environmental footprint.

Within the glasshouse industry there are also big differences between the age of the glass
employed and the management systems in use which can have a major impact on the
environmental footprint. These results are based on average age glasshouses depreciated over
30 years and growing three crops a year without the use of soil fumigants. However, modern
glass can support up to five crops a year which would not lower the environmental impact but
would increase the, already high, value of the crop per hectare.

While protected lettuce (20% of total lettuce grown in England) may have the highest
environmental footprint on a per hectare basis, it also has the smallest area of the crops within
this study, and overall it ranks 12/12 for environmental impact at the UK scale. Protected
lettuce accounts for just 0.01% of the UK’s total environmnetal burden, which is 14 times
smaller than strawberries, the highest of the horticultural crops, and 1,418 times smaller than
winter wheat.

Including soil fumigation increases the environmental impact; the ranking rises to 10/12 while
the environmental impact at the UK scale rises to 0.14%.

The value of the protected lettuce crop is very high at £48,810 per hectare, so even with its
high environmental footprint, the value per footprint unit is also high at £826, the second
highest within this study.

It is difficult to assess the impact of protected lettuce on a regional basis since accurate data is
unavailable. Defra’s data for their Glasshouse Survey reveals the regional distribution of
glasshouses but not what crop is grown, however, the South-East, Eastern and Yorkshire &
Humberside regions have the biggest areas of glass, so it is in these regions that we assume
the biggest environmental impacts will be found although that assumption cannot be
quantified without more accurate data than currently available.

38
 3.3.13. Strawberries under polythene

The average crop assumes a three year, soil based system using 50 kg ha-1 of nitrogen
fertilizer to achieve a yield of 18 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 18. The environmental impact of protected strawberry

Commodity: Strawberry (poly tunnel)

Ecological footprint: 13.0 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 178 (3818 including soil fumigation) kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 21,511 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 10.1 kg ha-1
Water: 2,303,200 litres ha-1
Labour: 954 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 54.864
Area: 3,782 ha
Production: 63,900 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £127.6 M
Value per hectare: £33,739
Environmental footprint (UK): 207,496
Value of crop per footprint unit: £615

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of strawberries grown under polythene is 54.9, which is the
second highest of the crops in this study. Of the six indicators used, strawberry was always in
the top three apart from its eutrophication and acidification potential. Strawberry ranked
number one in terms of water and labour use. Like protected lettuce, the biggest influence in
the environmental footprint is infrastructure, both in the materials used in the manufacture of
the polytunnel and ancillaries, and in the carbon dioxide emitted during the production
process. Again, like protected lettuce, in purely environmental terms, it is the omission of soil
fumigants that stands out.

39
If an assessment of the footprint including the use of soil fumigants is required, it is necessary
to extrapolate from the current position. The current scale for the EIQ pesticide rating
assumes a maximum of 250 which is scaled back to 100. Where a soil fumigant is included,
the EIQ pesticide rating is 3818 which would therefore represent 1527 after scaling, giving a
revised footprint of 298. Like protected lettuce, this isn’t a good approach but does
demonstrate the impact of soil fumigants on the environmental footprint. New production
systems which do not require soil sterilisation are being introduced, however, it difficult to
assess their uptake and to quantify how much of current production still relies on the use of
fumigants. Given the potential impact of fumigants on the environmental footprint this is an
area where further work would be useful.

Calculating the area of strawberries that are grown under polythene is difficult. Basic
Horticultural Statistics (Defra, 2006) reports that in 2005/6, 3,782 ha of strawberries were
grown in the UK, however their data does not distinguish between the crop grown under
polythene and that in open fields, although the assumption is that a large percentage is grown
under some sort of cover.

Of the horticultural crops in this study, strawberry had the highest environmental footprint
and the highest environmental impact at a UK scale, accounting for 0.20% of the total
environmental burden, however, the impact is still 100 less than winter wheat and 212 times
less than the dairy sector. Including soil fumigation for all the crop would lift the
environmental impact of the sector to 1.09% which is approximately half that of sugar beet.

Strawberries grown under polythene, like protected lettuce, are a very valuable crop being
worth almost £34,000 per hectare and having a value per footprint unit of £615, the third
highest in this study.

Defra’s Glasshouse Survey of England and Wales’ definition of glasshouse is ’any fixed or
mobile structure of a height sufficient to allow persons to enter and which is glazed or clad
with film or rigid plastics or glass substitutes’. However, their 2005 estimate of 105 ha of
glasshouse strawberries excludes that crop grown in Spanish tunnels (polytunnels). Defra’s
June Census for 2006 reports that the UK grew 9,000 ha of soft fruit, which includes
raspberries and blackcurrants in addition to strawberries. In the absence of reliable data and
for the purpose of this report, we assume that all UK strawberries are grown under polythene.
Strawberry production is concentrated in the West Midlands, the South-West and the South-
East.

40
 3.3.14. Narcissi

The average crop assumes a two year system using 38 kg ha-1 of nitrogen fertilizer to produce
both bulbs and flowers. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 19. The environmental impact of Narcissi

Commodity: Narcissi
Ecological footprint: 7.4 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 154 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 6,065 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 15.7 kg ha-1
Water: 107,000 litres ha-1
Labour: 229 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 22.287
Area: 3,900 ha
Production: no data available
Value of UK crop: £14.4
Value per hectare: £3,692
Environmental footprint (UK): 86,920
Value of crop per footprint unit: £166

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of Narcissi is 22.3 which is slightly higher than the average for
field based horticultural crops of 20.5. The biggest influence in the environmental footprint
was the use of pesticides. Overall, Narcissi ranked 6/12 for its environmental footprint and
since the overall area is small, 11/12 for environmental impact at a UK scale accounting for
0.09% of the total UK footprint.

41
Narcissi is a reasonable valuable crop being worth £3,692 on a per hectare basis and £166 per
footprint unit. It’s value per footprint unit value places it bottom of the horticultural crops but
still above the arable and livestock commodities.

Table 20. National and regional environmental impact of bulbs and flowers in 2006

Country / Region Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 0 0
North-West 63 1,404
Yorkshire & Humber 11 245
East Midlands 1,855 41,342
West Midlands 57 1,270
Eastern 538 11,990
London 0 0
South-East 111 2,474
South-West 2,054 45,777
Wales - -
Scotland - -
Northern Ireland 15 334
Total 4,704 104,838

Defra’s regional statistics group all bulbs and flowers together to give a total UK area of
4,704 ha. However, since Narcissi account for 83% of that area, we consider that applying the
Narcissi footprint value to the total area is reasonable. The sector accounts for 0.09% of the
total UK environmental footprint and regionally, two areas are important: the East Midlands
and the South-West. However, the bulbs and flowers sector is small in comparison to most
others so their impact at regional level is small, contributing just 0.44% and 0.26% to the
regional environmental impact, respectively.

42
 3.3.15. Potato

The average crop is based on main crop potatoes and assumes a plough based tillage system
using 200 kg ha-1 of nitrogen fertilizer to yield 45 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is in annex
A. Main crop potatoes make up over 90% of the total potato area in the UK so the regional
analysis assumes that all potatoes are main crop.

Table 21.The environmental impact of potato

Commodity: Potato
Ecological footprint: 7.38 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 134 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 7,041 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 47.2 kg ha-1
Water: 1,203,000 litres ha-1
Labour: 61 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 27.051
Area: 138,264 ha
Production: 5,574,687 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £625 M
Value per hectare: £4520
Environmental footprint (UK): 3,740,226
Value of crop per footprint unit: £167

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of potato is 27.1 which is the highest of the field based crops.
The two biggest influences within the footprint are the use of pesticides and water. Potato also
recorded the highest values for global warming potential, eutrophication and acidification
amongst the field based crops; this is due to fairly high use of nitrogen fertiliser, both in terms
of the energy used to manufacture it and the nitrous oxide emitted in its use.

43
In comparison to the other commodities under investigation, the environmental footprint of
potatoes on a per hectare basis is quite high, being ranked 5/12 by crop and 4/12 on a UK
basis. Unlike the horticultural crops which occupy a relatively small area within the UK,
potato is the first of the major arable crops, having an area of 138,264 hectares which is more
than all the horticultural crops combined and an environmental impact which is four times
greater. However, the environmental impact of potatoes is still reasonably small in
comparison to wheat which is five and a half times greater.

Potatoes are a valuable crop at £4520 per hectare which ranks them along side the other field
grown horticultural crops and a long way ahead of the other arable crops. Their value per
footprint unit of £167, which again ranks them with the horticultural rather than the arable
crops.

Table 22. National and regional environmental impact of potato in 2006

Country / Region Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 1,469 39,738

North-West 7,234 195,687
Yorkshire & Humber 16,560 467,965
East Midlands 16,879 456,594
West Midlands 16,204 438,334
Eastern 34,853 942,809
London 0 0
South-East 3,655 98,871
South-West 6,485 175,426
Wales 2,026 54,805
Scotland 28,151 761,513
Northern Ireland 4,748 128,438
Total 138,264 3,740,179

Regionally, potatoes tend to be concentrated in the east of England and Scotland although
there are no areas of the UK that do not support some of the crop. Potatoes are important in
eastern England, Yorkshire and Humberside and Scotland, contributing 8.8%, 5.2% and 4.6%,
respectively, to their regional environmental impact.

44
 3.3.16. Sugar beet

The average crop assumes a plough based tillage system using 100 kg ha-1 of nitrogen
fertilizer to achieve a yield of 57 t ha-1. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A.

Table 23. The environmental impact of sugar beet

Commodity: Sugar beet

Ecological footprint: 6.34 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 124 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 2,960 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 22.0 kg ha-1
Water: 503,800 litres ha-1
Labour: 28 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 18.25
Area: 128,901 ha
Production: 53,823 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £168 M
Value per hectare: £1,303
Environmental footprint (UK): 2,352,443
Value of crop per footprint unit: £71

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of sugar beet is 18.3 which ranks it 11/12 of the commodities in
this study, only wheat is lower. The single biggest influence is pesticide use although
machinery use within the ecological footprint also contributes quite highly.

The area of sugar beet in the UK ranks it along side potato but its lower environmental
footprint of 18.2, in comparison to the 27.0, means that at a UK scale its environmental
impact is smaller than potato, being ranked 4/12 and accounting for 3.7% of the total
environmental burden.

45
In comparison to the horticultural commodities in this study, sugar beet is not a particularly
valuable crop, having a value per hectare of £1,303 and a value per footprint unit of only £71,
under half that of potato.

Table 24. National and regional environmental impact of sugar beet in 2006

Country / Region Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 0 0
North-West 0 0
Yorkshire & Humber 17,929 327,204
East Midlands 26,658 486,509
West Midlands 11,569 211,134
Eastern 72,473 1,322,632
London 0 0
South-East 0 0
South-West 272 4,964
Wales 0 0
Scotland 0 0
Northern Ireland 0 0
Total 128,901 2,352,443

The distribution of sugar beet within the UK is influenced by the location of the processing
factories and it is likely the area within the West Midlands will fall due to the recent loss of
processing facilities. This influence has resulted in sugar beet being a regionally important
crop. It is well represented in some regions and absent in others. In the East Midlands, sugar
beet contributes 5.2% to the regional environmental impact while it is 12.3% in the Eastern
region.

46
 3.3.17. Winter wheat

This average crop assumes a plough based tillage system using 220 kg ha-1 of nitrogen
fertilizer to yield 8 t ha-1 at 15% moisture. The full inventory sheet is in annex A.

Table 25. The environmental impact of winter wheat

Commodity: Winter wheat

Ecological footprint: 6.21 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 83 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 2,782 kg ha-1
Eutrophication and acidification potential: 12.3 kg ha-1
Water: 2,000 litres ha-1
Labour: 12 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 11.528
Area: 1,828,376 ha
Production: 14,697,829 tonnes
Value of UK crop: £1,158 M
Value per hectare: £633
Environmental footprint (UK): 21,176,251
Value of crop per footprint unit: £55

Ecological footprint (0-20 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-25,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-250 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of winter wheat is 11.5 which is the lowest of all the
commodities in this study. The biggest influence within the footprint is pesticide use but even
here it ranks 11/12 of the commodities studied. However, winter wheat is the dominant arable
crop within the UK, occupying an area of 1,828,376 hectares which is greater than all the
other field crops, horticultural and arable, combined. On a UK scale, wheat ranks 1/12 for
area and 3/12 for environmental impact and accounts for 20.6% of the UK’s environmental

47
burden. Winter wheat has an environmental impact five times that of potatoes but half that of
lamb.

In terms of UK economics, wheat is a valuable crop however the same is not true on a per
hectare basis. Wheat is valued at £6334 per hectare and £55 per footprint unit, ranked it 10/12
of the commodities in this study. Only the two livestock commodities are lower.

Table 26. National and regional environmental impact of wheat in 2006

Country / Region Area of (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 65,309 756,409

North-West 30,103 348,653
Yorkshire & Humber 227,195 2,613,372
East Midlands 346,840 4,017,101
West Midlands 154,163 1,785,516
Eastern 469,460 5,437,286
London 2,452 28,399
South-East 233,598 2,705,532
South-West 175,298 2,030,301
Wales 15,524 179,799
Scotland 99,681 1,154,505
Northern Ireland 8,753 101,377
Total 1,828,376 21,176,251

Regionally, winter wheat tends to be concentrated in the south and east of the UK, although
there are no areas that do not support some of the crop. Given the large areas that the crop
occupies, it is no surprise that wheat is important on a regional basis. Four regions: Yorkshire
& Humberside, East Midlands, Eastern and the South-East have over 30% of their regional
impact attributed to wheat with the Eastern region the highest at 50.5%.

4
£633 per hectare is based on 2006 data. The price of winter wheat has doubled since this study started.

48
 3.3.18. Lamb

The average production system is based on a stocking density of eleven ewes, sixteen lambs
and a share of a ram per hectare. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A. This
production system seeks to describe a typical lowland system so will not be representative of
upland systems where stocking rates are lower. In calculating the environmental footprint at a
regional and country level, the sheep population is taken to include all ewes, lambs and rams.

Table 27. The environmental impact of lamb

Commodity: Lamb
Ecological footprint: 6.3 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 106 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 8,190 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 45.5 kg ha-1
Water: 23,609 litres ha-1
Labour: 85 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 18.422
Number of breeding sheep: 16,798,826
Production of lamb: 333,000 tonnes
Value of UK production: £702 M
Value per hectare: £447
Environmental footprint (UK): 28,133,452
Value of crop per footprint unit: £24

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of lamb is 18.4 which ranks it 10/12 in this study. Pesticides
associated with dipping are the biggest influence in the environmental footprint. However
some explanation is required regarding the ecological footprint indicator and stocking rates.
Within the ecological footprint, crop land is assigned a value based on its productivity on a
global basis and all the field and protected crops are assigned the same value of 5.82.

49
However, pasture land for sheep farming is assumed to be less productive and is given a value
of 5.04. While this value is reasonable for lowland flocks it is likely to be an overestimate for
upland and hill flocks. The stocking rate for sheep in this study is assumed to be eleven ewes
plus lambs per hectare which is an average rate on lowland units, however, stocking rates will
be lower on upland and hill farms. Any changes to the ecological footprint or stocking rate
will not be important enough to alter the ranking of lamb in comparison to the other
commodities in this study, but care is required when dealing with the environmental footprint
at the per hectare level. Our calculations suggest that the footprint of lamb would drop on hill
farms with poorer soils and lower density stocking.

The other major influences within the footprint are the production of ammonia which results
in a fairly high eutrophication and acidification potential and the production of methane
which contributes to global warming potential.

At sector level, lamb ranks 2/12 and accounts for 28.2% of the UK’s environmental burden.
Lamb is economically important, ranking third behind milk and wheat, however this is not
true on an area basis, being valued at £447 per hectare and £24 per footprint unit, both these
are the lowest of the commodities under study.

Table 28. National and regional environmental impact of sheep in 2006

Country / Region Number Area (ha) Environmental footprint

North-East 865,971 78,725 1,450,265

North-West 1,405,199 127,745 2,353,325
Yorkshire & Humber 883,920 80,356 1,480,325
East Midlands 567,184 51,562 949,879
West Midlands 767,828 69,803 1,285,902
Eastern 165,406 15,037 277,010
London 1,135 103 1,901
South-East 614,077 55,825 1,028,411
South-West 1,616,779 146,980 2,707,664
Wales 4,957,885 450,717 8,303,105
Scotland 3,934,938 357,722 6,589,948
Northern Ireland 1,018,504 92,591 1,705,716
Total 16,798,826 1,572,166 28,133,452

Sheep farming is a regionally important activity concentrated in the west and north of the UK
and this is reflected in the regional environmental burdens. Three areas: the North-East of
England, Wales and Scotland have over 40% of their regional environmental burden
attributed to sheep, reaching a maximum of almost 60% in Wales.

50
 3.3.19. Milk

The average production system is based on a stocking density of two dairy cows per hectare
and includes an allowance for followers. The full inventory sheet is attached in annex A. In
calculating the environmental footprint at a regional and country level, the dairy population is
taken to include all dairy cows, whether lactating or in calf, and all followers.

Table 29. The environmental impact of milk

Commodity: Milk
Ecological footprint: 10.95 gha ha-1
Pesticide rating: 74 kg ha-1
Global warming potential: 19,481 kg ha-1
Eutrophication & acidification potential: 192.9 kg ha-1
Water: 95,580 litres ha-1
Labour: 84 hours ha-1
Environmental footprint (ha): 34.568
Number of dairy cows: 2,627,853
Production: 13,938,000 tonnes
Value of UK production: £2,500 M
Value per hectare: £1,903 ha-1
Environmental footprint (UK): 45,419,811
Value of crop per footprint unit: £55

Ecological footprint (0-25 gha)

Labour (0-1000 hrs/ha) Pesticide rating (0-250)

Water (0-3,000,000 l/ha) GWP (0-75,000 kg/ha)

EAP (0-200 kg/ha)

The environmental footprint of milk is 34.6 which ranks the sector 3/12 of the commodities in
this study. The major influences within the footprint are the production of ammonia (which
results in a very high eutrophication and acidification potential), the burden of the
infrastructure (the dairy itself and livestock housing) and the production of methane (which
results in a high global warming potential).

51
Like lamb, some explanation is required regarding the ecological footprint indicator and
stocking rates. Within the ecological footprint, crop land is assigned a value based on its
productivity on a global basis and all the field and protected crops are given the same value of
5.82. However, pasture land for dairying is assumed to be less productive and is given a value
of 5.04 which is then decreased pro-rata to match the time the herd spends grazing. The
inventory is based on cows being housed for 250 days and outdoors for 115 days. The
stocking rate for dairy cattle in this study is assumed to be two cows plus calves per hectare,
which is an average rate for lowland units, however, stocking rates may vary under other
management systems and land types. Any changes to the ecological footprint or stocking rate
will not be important enough to alter the ranking of milk within the other crops under study,
but care is required when dealing with the environmental footprint at the per hectare level.
Our calculations suggest that the footprint of milk could drop to under 30 on less productive
land or at lower stocking rates.

At a UK scale, dairy ranks 1/12 in terms of its environmental burden and accounts for 44.3%
of the UK’s environmental burden. In economic terms, the dairy industry dwarfs the other
commodities in this study being valued at £2,500 million which is double that of wheat which
is next highest and larger than the other eleven sectors combined. Milk gives a return of
£1,903 per hectare and £55 per footprint unit.

Table 30. National and regional environmental impact of milk in 2006

Country / Region Numbers of dairy cows Area (ha) Environmental footprint

+ followers

North-East 23,405 11,703 404,532

North-West 412,071 206,036 7,122,235
Yorkshire & Humber 136,444 68,222 2,358,298
East Midlands 121,465 60,733 2,099,401
West Midlands 247,796 123,898 4,282,906
Eastern 38,203 19,102 660,301
London 0 0 0
South-East 122,195 61,098 2,122,018
South-West 643,001 321,501 11,113,629
Wales 280,968 140,484 4,856,251
Scotland 242,879 121,440 4,197,921
Northern Ireland 359,426 179,713 6,212,319
Total 2,627,853 1,313,927 45,419,811

In all areas except the Eastern region of England, the dairy industry contributes significantly
to the regional environmental burden, however, like the production of lamb, milk is
concentrated in the west of the UK. Four regions: the North-West, the West Midlands and the
South-West of England and Northern Ireland have over 40% of their regional environmental
burden attributable to milk with the North-West and Northern Ireland being over 60%.

52
 3.3.20. Conclusions

By commodity

The horticulture sector contains a diverse selection of crops and commodities and this is
highlighted in the results. Those commodities with the least environmental impact are the
field grown vegetables (carrot, cauliflower and onion) with an average environmental
footprint of 20.5. At the other end of the scale are the protected crops (lettuce and strawberry)
with an average value of 57.0, almost three times greater than field grown vegetables. Field
grown horticultural crops compare favourable with the arable crops (wheat, sugar beet and
potatoes) which had an average environmental footprint of 18.9; greater nitrogen and labour
requirements being the main difference.

Milk has a high environmental footprint which can be attributed to emissions of ammonia and
methane leading to high values for EAP and GWP. The same is true for lamb but not to the
same extent.

Table 31 . Individual and UK environmental footprint by commodity

Commodity Footprint UK area Footprint

(per ha) (ha) (UK)

Apple 29.2 4,582 133,661

Carrot 19.3 9,512 183,869
Cauliflower 20.3 9,925 201,032
Lettuce* 59.1 252 14,891
Narcissi 22.3 3,900 86,920
Onion 20.3 8,561 173,495
Strawberry* 54.9 3,782 207,496
Potato 27.1 138,264 3,740,226
Sugar beet 18.3 128,901 2,352,443
Winter wheat 11.5 1,828,376 21,076,909
Lamb 18.4 1,572,480 28,962,433
Milk 34.6 1,313,927 45,420,413
*Protected cropping without soil fumigation

This study was undertaken to assess the overall environmental footprint of different sectors,
however, the results can also provide an insight into the impact of the individual indicators.
Although levels of pesticides, global warming potential, eutrophication and acidification are
of concern to the agricultural sector, they also have environmental impacts that are of interest
to a wider environmental audience. Tables 7 and 8 quantified the contribution per hectare
from the individual commodities but understanding these contributions at the UK scale will
be the first step in reducing their impacts.

Table 32 shows that the milk and lamb sectors dominate both GWP and EAP, accounting for
85.2% and 90.8%, respectively of total production. Although the livestock sector is still the
biggest contributor to pesticide amounts, it’s relative contribution at 57.9% is reduced
compared to GWP and EAP. The contribution by the arable sector to GWP and EAP is low in
comparison to the livestock sector at 14.3% and 8.9%, respectively, although its contribution

53
to total pesticides is relatively large at 40.9%. At a national scale, horticulture contributes
little to overall values of GWP, EAP and pesticides, just 0.5%, 0.3% and 1.2%, respectively.

Table 32 . Total UK GWP, EAP and pesticide impacts.

Commodity GWP EAP EIQ Pesticides

(‘000 tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)

Apple 13 37 939
Carrot 33 226 1,037
Cauliflower 38 309 1,102
Lettuce* 14 9 42
Narcissi 24 61 601
Onion 28 235 1,199
Strawberry* 81 38 673
Potato 974 6,526 18,527
Sugar beet 382 2,836 15,984
Winter wheat 5,087 22,489 151,755
Lamb 12,876 71,581 166,650
Milk 25,597 253,457 97,231
*Protected cropping without soil fumigation

By UK sector

In comparison with both the arable and livestock sectors, the environmental impact of
horticulture is small, which is due to the relatively small area it occupies. Protected lettuce
had the highest environmental footprint but the smallest area and overall the smallest
environmental impact. Although growing strawberries under polythene had the highest
environmental impact of the horticultural crops, its impact was one-tenth that of sugar beet.
The environmental footprint of the field grown vegetable crops falls between the arable crops,
sugar beet and potatoes, and in the majority of cases cannot be said to be different to them in
either agronomic or environmental impact. In general, horticultural crops have slightly higher
requirements for nitrogen fertilizer and labour but those are the only differences. The total
environmental footprint of all the horticultural crops in this study was under half that of sugar
beet and one-fortieth of the milk sector.

Overall, the arable crops had the lowest footprint of all the commodities studied. However,
they cover a greater area, 50 times that of horticulture, so their impact is much larger.

The two livestock sectors are very different, raising lambs is an extensive system while dairy
is intensive, however, they share two factors which dominate their environmental footprints,
namely large land use areas and methane production. Due to the extensive nature of sheep
farming and the fact that stocking densities are probably lower than the 11 ewes per hectare
on many hill and upland areas, it is likely that sheep occupy a larger area than reported here;
although a lower stocking density would also result in a lower footprint per hectare. This is
one of the areas where the environmental footprint could be refined to provide different
values depending on land type; this would also apply to other extensive livestock systems, for
example, beef, which is not covered in this report.

At a UK scale, the environmental impact of horticultural crops is small. The agricultural

industry is always going to be dominated by the size of the arable and livestock sectors. In

54
terms of both value and environmental burdens, the milk industry, by virtue of its sheer size,
will always dominate. Of the total footprint measured in this study, the horticultural, arable
and livestock sectors account for 1%, 26% and 73%, respectively.

Table 33. UK farmed area and regional environmental impacts

Country / Region Total % of farmed area Regional Average

farmed area covered by this environmental regional
(ha) study footprint* footprint

North-East 589,077 34.0 3,147,715 15.7

North-West 935,871 44.6 10,601,824 25.4
Yorkshire & Humber 1,097,397 47.5 8,559,772 16.4
East Midlands 1,229,436 49.3 9,357,616 15.5
West Midlands 959,624 46.6 8,971,394 20.1
Eastern 1,432,430 54.5 10,761,921 13.9
London 14,590 21.9 37,870 11.9
South-East 1,192,279 37.0 7,143,037 16.2
South-West 1,877,868 41.5 17,646,337 22.7
Wales 1,492,941 42.9 13,773,700 21.5
Scotland 5,285,061 17.5 16,525,494 17.9
Northern Ireland 1,028,495 30.5 8,508,386 27.1
Total 115,035,068
*Based on total area of cereals rather than just winter wheat

By region and country

This study has only looked at selected crops, which means that some sectors that cover large
areas (set aside, beef, oil seed rape and field legumes) have been excluded, as were sectors
which occupy small areas but have high environmental impacts (pigs and poultry). This
makes it impossible to assess the total environmental impact at regional level since not all the
required information is available; this fact is demonstrated by the selected crops only
accounting for on average 37% of English crops and 35% of UK crops. In addition, caution
should be applied when interpreting the percentage of farmed areas, and therefore regional
environmental burden, since this is heavily influenced by the stocking rates of livestock. This
is especially important in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland where stocking
rates on upland and hill farms are likely to be less than those assumed in the calculation of the
environmental footprint.

However, it is possible to draw some general conclusions. Table 33 contains the average
environmental footprint values for the English regions and the four home countries. The
average footprint for the English regions is 17.5 and regions with values lower than this tend
to be in the east and mainly arable or horticultural, while those regions with values above the
average tend to be in the west and concentrate on livestock systems, especially dairy. Wales
and Northern Ireland, both principally livestock areas, have footprints higher than the
average. Again, some caution is required since many Eastern areas contain high areas of pig
and poultry production which will raise their environmental impact. Figure 1 shows the same
data as Table 33 but uses county level, rather than regional level, data for England.

55
Figure 1. The environmental footprint of UK regions and counties

By financial return

This report has so far restricted itself to environmental impacts, however other options do
exist. Having established the environmental burden of a commodity, it is possible to go on
and assess the economic value of that burden by dividing the total sector value by the total
environmental footprint to give a value per footprint unit. This approach can assess the worth
of environmental impact, the higher the value the better the return on the environmental
impact. The results range from £908 for carrots down to £24 for lamb; the average for the
horticultural crops is £469, for arable crops £98 and £40 for livestock (Table 34).

56
Table 34 . Commodity values and value per environmental footprint unit

Commodity Value of UK sector Value per ha Value per

(£ million) (£) footprint unit (£)

Apple 43.0 9,384 322

Carrot 166.9 17,551 908
Cauliflower 47.6 3,923 237
Lettuce* 12.3 47,000 826
Narcissi 14.4 3,692 166
Onion 33.6 3,923 194
Strawberry* 127.6 33,747 615
Potato 625.0 4,716 167
Sugar beet 168.0 1,303 71
Winter wheat 1,158.0 633 55
Lamb 7,02.0 460 25
Milk 2,500.0 1,903 55
*Protected cropping

3.3.21. A case-study on conventional and organic cropping

Background

This case study is an addition to the main environmental footprints and analyses real farm
data collected in 2001, 2002 and 2005 from a large-scale arable and vegetable producer in
north Lincolnshire. It compares conventional and organic crops grown in the same year
(parallel cropping) under the same conditions; this is a rare opportunity as organic
certification bodies allow it only under certain conditions. The analysis uses two simple
indicators: the ecological footprint (including energy use and CO2 emissions) and (2) the EIQ
pesticide rating.

Material and Methods

Table 35 shows details of the crops used for this study. Only crops where organic and
conventional systems were used in the same year and on the same farm are shown. The crops
in this study represent a total area of 610 ha with 472 ha under conventional management and
138 ha under organic management.

Table 35. Crop, year and management system.

Crop Year Conventional area Organic area
(ha) (ha)
Cabbage (Savoy) 2002 12 2
Celeriac 2002 14 5
Sugar beet 2001 188 9
Winter wheat 2005 258 122

All physical data (yields, variable and fixed costs, gross margins, physical data on fertiliser
and pesticide treatments and field operations) was obtained from farm records held on a
management software package. The data values are an average across the entire area of the

57
crop. The farm is located on a sandy loam soil and the same basic equipment (plough, harrow
and harvesting) was used for both conventional and organic crops.

The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) for pesticides, nitrate leachate, nitrous oxide (N2O)
from fertiliser N and residue N, nitrogen oxide (NO), ammonia (NH3) and phosphate leachate
were calculated using the same methods employed for the environmental footprints in the
main study.

CO2 emissions are a direct conversion, using Defra’s carbon intensity figures for various
energy forms (Defra, 2007), from the energy use figures for every input which were based on
the quantities of the machinery, seed fertiliser and other inputs used on farm and then matched
with the conversion factors provided by Metcalf and Cormack (2000) and Williams et. al.
(2006). The conversion factors include direct and indirect energy use for manufacture,
delivery and maintenance. The boundary used is everything recorded in the crop management
software up the farm gate. From the total energy use, the CO2-emissions are calculated using
Defra’s (Defra, 2007) carbon intensity figures (78 kg CO2/GJ for fuel oil).

The ecological footprint is calculated using two main components: (1) CO2 as defined by the
global footprint network standards (Global footprint network, 2007). This is calculated using
a direct conversion from CO2 tonnes to global hectares of 0.40 gha per t CO2, which is based
on web-based publications (Best Foot Forward, 2007). (2) The primary cropland of 5.82
gha/ha. However, the build land component for housing machinery is not included so some
caution needs to be applied when comparing the results from the case study to those of the 12
commodities for which a full ecological footprint was constructed, however, any differences
will be minimal.

The energy use ratio was calculated as metabolisable energy (ME) outputs of the marketable
crop yield divided by the direct and indirect energy inputs (Metcalf and Cormack, 2000). A
high ratio is desirable and a ratio above one indicates a theoretical net energy gain.

Results and Discussion

Conventionally grown Savoy cabbage, sugar beet and wheat had higher marketable yields
than their organic equivalents, however, organic celeriac yielded better than conventional
celeriac. Both conventional and organic Savoy cabbage made a loss because of the low
marketable yield. Conventional sugar beet produced a better return than organic, however
organic celeriac and winter wheat produced better financial returns than their conventional
equivalents. For winter wheat, the organic yield was 70% of conventional, but variable costs
were lower and a premium of greater than 100% on the price compared to conventional,
resulted in a higher gross margin.

CO2-component of the ecological footprint

It is interesting to note that despite these mixed physical outputs and economic results the
CO2-emissions per hectare were consistently lower in all crops in the organic system (Table
36). The CO2-component of the ecological footprint is below 1 gha/ha grown for all organic
crops and the two conventional arable crops sugar beet and winter wheat. The only crops with
a higher footprint are the two conventional vegetables cabbage and celeriac.

58
CO2-emissions and energy ratio

Indirect carbon dioxide emissions per hectare were lower for the organically grown crops
since they used no synthesised nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides. CO2-emissions per unit
yield were also lower in organics. This is despite the fact that organics had mostly lower
yields. The same is true for the energy ratio where all output energy is compared to input
energy. Data for the four individual crops in contained in appendix C.

Table 36: Marketable yield, CO2 emissions, ecological footprint, energy ratio, EIQ and gross
margin.
Indicator (unit) Cabbage Celeriac Sugar Winter
beet wheat
Conv. Org. Conv. Org. Conv. Org. Conv. Org.

Mkt. Yield (t ha-1) 10.8 3.1 5.2 11.0 45.9 22.4 8.1 5.6
CO2 (kg ha-1) 2,160 620 2,600 770 1,377 672 1,215 504
Footprint (gha ha-1) 6.69 6.06 6.79 6.14 6.41 6.08 6.29 6.02
Energy Ratio 1.9 2.0 0.4 3.2 6.0 7.2 7.3 11.6
EIQ Field use rating 93 80 163 8 134 0 132 0
Gross margin (£ ha-1) -380 -1200 612 5,785 1,218 326 505 1,053

Savoy cabbage

The yield under conventional management was nearly three and half times higher than under
organic, however, overall yields were low which resulted in both management systems
making a loss (Table 36). However, the small difference in the EIQ field rating between the
two systems shows that the organic cabbage receives almost as much, if different, pesticide
applications as the conventional crop. Although the organic crop used greater energy for field
cultivations, the higher ecological footprint of the conventional crop was due to the greater
embedded energy from the use of fertilizers and higher use of pesticides.

Celeriac

The conventional crop was very unsuccessful producing only half the marketable yield of the
organic and although the values for CO2 emissions per tonne and energy ratio are shown in
Table 36, no inference should be drawn from them. The conventional crop had a higher
energy requirement and ecological footprint compared to the organic crop due to the inputs of
fertilizer and pesticides. Unlike organic cabbage, organic celeriac used only a very small
quantity of pesticides. Of all the crops in this case study, organic celeriac was the most
successful crop economically.

Sugar beet

The yield of conventional sugar beet was double that of organic and achieved almost four
times the gross margin. Whilst the energy requirement and carbon dioxide emissions were
lower for the organic crop on a per hectare basis they were very similar on a per tonne of
product basis.

59
Winter wheat

The yield of conventional winter wheat was 8.1 t/ha compared to 5.6 t/ha for the organic crop.
The footprint results show that organic system has 62% of the carbon emissions per unit yield
and a footprint 6.02 gha/ha compared to 6.29 for the conventional. If the land component of
the ecological footprint is stripped out, inputs for the organic system are half that of the
conventional. The EIQ field use rating is 0 compared to 132 in conventional.

Table 37. Details of energy use (MJ/ha) in basic inputs, cultivations and pesticides.
Crop Cabbage Celeriac Sugar beet Winter wheat
System Conv. Org. Conv. Org. Conv. Org. Conv. Org.

Basic inputs 20,918 479 19,858 640 6,219 159 7,081 1,135
Cultivations 5,195 6,515 9,555 9,710 8,387 8,091 6,063 5,327
Pesticides 1,874 807 1,631 51 4,406 10 1,985 7
Fertility building 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228

Total 27,987 9,029 31,044 11,629 19,012 9,488 15,128 7,698

Energy use in conventional crops is two to three times greater compared to organic crops.
This is mainly due to higher basic inputs and pesticide applications. The energy inputs in
terms of machinery use for cultivation and harvesting was on average lower in conventional
systems. Higher applications of nitrogen fertilizers result in higher energy inputs in the two
conventional horticulture crops compared to the two arable crops.

Consideration of fertility building in organic farming

Organic farming requires fertility building or green manure crops to provide nitrogen and
other nutrients, however, fertility building has an energy cost which must be included in all
calculations. On this farm the average fertility building was 25% (one year within a 4-year
rotation, or two years in a 8-year rotation). Therefore, to take account of this is the crop yield
was assumed to be only 75% of the actual yield and the 3684 MJ/ha required to grow a red
clover fertility crop (details see appendix) was divided into the 3 remaining years of the
rotation adding 1228 MJ/ha to each crop.

With these adjustments, the CO2-component of the ecological footprint of organic crops is
about 0.2 gha/ha higher. However, it remains below the conventional comparison for this
farm. The CO2 production per unit yield reaches now the same level as conventional for
cabbage (Savoy) and winter wheat. It is above conventional for sugar beet and celeriac should
be read with caution, because the conventional yield in this year was extremely low compared
to organic.

Conclusions

Although this case-study has only looked at one farm and 610 ha, the results show how
energy use figures, CO2 emissions and the ecological footprint can be used as a farm
management tool to illustrate and potentially improve the footprint of a crop. In these
examples, it can be concluded that the farm has improved its ecological footprint by growing
organic instead of conventional crops in all four studied cases.

60
A further conclusion is to highlight the influence that N, P and K fertilisers have on the crop
footprint, especially in the two vegetable crops. Any reduction in conventional fertiliser
inputs, or optimisation of fertiliser use, will therefore have positive environmental effects on
leaching (Schmutz et al. 2006) and also on the ecological footprint.

In the future, better ways of fertility building could be introduced, such as growing more
leguminous main crops (broad beans, peas, lupines or even soybeans) or using short-term
fertility crops. To allow organic crops to compete with their conventional alternatives, higher
yields are required to maintain any relative advantage that organic may have over
conventional in terms of energy use and CO2 emissions per unit yield.

61
4. The socio-economic footprint

4.1. Background

Horticulture is an important sector which generates an output of £2,153m per annum and
which accounts for 15% of the total agricultural output. The sector is growing by 4% per
annum (Defra, 2005). Although it physically occupies a small land area (170,000 hectares or
1% of the agricultural land area), it is a high output/ha and high input/ha industry in
comparison with other agriculture sectors. Horticultural production can require high levels of
investments and can use high levels of inputs, such as water, energy and labour, however, it
also produces products of high monetary value,

Sustainability in agriculture and horticulture is increasingly becoming important as the

linkages between the economy, society and the environment are more widely recognised
(Hayo et al., 2001). Sustainability is a term with diverse interpretation and a proliferation of
definitions. However, it is commonly applied to ecological or environmental, social and
economic aspects of farming systems. Sustainable agriculture is essentially concerned with
the ability of agro-ecosystems to remain productive in the longer term. A key feature of farm
sustainability is the need to protect and make optimum use of limited natural resources within
an economically efficient and socially acceptable agricultural system. Sustainability is a
concept which is quite difficult to measure. However, many have attempted to devise tools or
methods that can provide understandable information to practitioners and to policy makers.
This is commonly undertaken using indicators or measures of sustainability.

4.2. Material and Methods

The key element of this analysis is to measure the economic and social sustainability or the
costs and benefits of the various horticultural sectors, and to make a comparison with other
agricultural sectors. This has been achieved by drawing together existing work on
sustainability indicators (e.g. Rigby et al., 2001) and more recent work which attempted to
measure the socio-economic impact of agriculture (Lobley et al., 2005). A framework has
been established which assesses both the economic and some of the social impacts of
horticulture. This framework has been used to compare the socio-economic footprint of five
horticulture sectors (top fruit, soft fruit, field vegetables, glasshouse production and flowers
and hardy nursery production) with four agricultural sectors (wheat and cereal production,
potatoes and sugar beet, dairy and sheep production). These sectors are designed to
complement those crops selected for the environmental footprint. This framework could
subsequently be used to compare these sectors with others.

First, it is necessary to define some terms used in this study:

• A socio-economic footprint brings together a set of indicators which describe the

economic and socio-economic characteristics of a business or a sector (Lobley et al.,
2005).

• An indicator is a quantitative measure against which some sort of policy performance

or management strategy can be assessed. The indicators were drawn from published

62
 and un-published statistical data, such as the Farm Business Survey (FBS) and data
from Defra’s statistical office on the horticultural and agricultural sectors.

The Farm Business Survey provides information on the financial position, and physical and
economic performance of farm businesses in England. The primary objective of the survey is
to contrast the performance, or other business characteristics, of different groupings of farms,
such as between regions or other geographical or environmental designations, farm types,
farm size, age or education of farmer etc. A representative sample of 2000 farms in England is
surveyed each year. Farm business survey data is recognised as being very robust, since it is
based on actual real farm data, however, since it is available over a year after the year in
question, the results are sometimes regarded as historical, and not reflecting the present
situation.

The two aspects of sustainability, which are measured in this study, are referred to as
dimensions. The two dimensions are the economic dimension and the socio-economic
dimension. Each dimension is then sub-divided into components and each component has
either one or more indicators, which are measured from available data and then scored on a
range from 1-10 (Vilian, 2000). This was done by setting the highest value to 10 and then
calculating the others in a direct proportion. The values of all the indicators were then scored
to add up to 100 as a maximum score for each dimension (Table 38). This process enables a
comparison between the various sectors for the same indicator and provides some indication
of the relative sustainability of the various sectors. The system of scoring does not try to
assess absolute sustainability, only relative sustainability. By adding all the indicator scores it
is possible to gain some indication of the relative sustainability between the horticultural and
agricultural industries, although the greater the amalgamation of scores the less can be gained
from the comparisons.

4.2.1. The economic dimension of sustainability

The economic dimension of the assessment examines the farm production system from a
financial and economic point of view. It uses disaggregated FBS data from the various
horticultural (Vaughan, 2007) and agricultural sectors (Defra, 2007). This dimension has four
components: viability, resilience, investments and efficiency (Table 38). The weightings
(maximum score) come from a study by Vilain (2000) and modified by Milla (2003). They
are based on subjective judgement of the relative importance of these factors to the economic
sustainability.

The long-term sustainability of a sector is based on the businesses, which are contained within
it, and by a number of key factors that affect it: viability, resilience, capital employed and
efficiency. The viability is based on the ability of the business to generate profits which
enable the farmer or business owner to pay back interest and capital on any money borrowed
and to reinvest for future growth, thus profit, return on capital and levels of capital assets
invested are key measures of success. In order to achieve profitability the business needs to be
efficient in terms of producing outputs with the least amount of inputs. In order to be
sustainable or resilient in the long term, it is considered that businesses should have a number
of sources of income and not be too dependent on one main source of product or subsidy or be
too heavily indebted. Therefore there are a number of key measures, which can be used to test
the economic health of a business or particular sector. These focus on measuring aspects of
business performance at the level of the farm or business, and are commonly used when
analysing business performance.

63
Table 38. Components and indicators for the economic dimension of sustainability.
Component Indicators Max
Score
Viability Economic viability 10
Return on capital 20
Resilience Financial autonomy 10
Dependence on subsidies 10
Level of specialisation 10
Investments Capital employed 15
Efficiency Productive process efficiency 15
Economic efficiency of inputs 10
TOTAL 100

4.2.2. Economic component and indicators and how they are calculated.

Viability

Here two measures are used:

V1 Economic viability
Net farm income (less labour cost)/labour units

The economic viability of a sector depends on profitable farm or grower businesses. Net farm
income (NFI) or net profit is measured by the difference between monetary outputs and inputs
and is one of the key ways in which the financial return to the farmer of business is assessed.
For comparison purposes, it is usually expressed per key unit of inputs. In this case, “labour
units” are used, in order to show whether the farm is capable of rewarding its labour, one of
its key inputs.

V2 Return on capital
Management and investment income/ capital invested in the business

This is a profitability ratio, which allows the owners of a business to look at profit in relation
to capital invested. Here it is measured as NFI income minus the farmer’s labour (also known
as MII Management and Investment Income) in relation to the capital invested, and expressed
as a percentage This should at least equal the costs of borrowing this money or be equivalent
to returns, which the money could have made if invested elsewhere.

Resilience

Here three measures are used:

R1 Financial autonomy
Owner equity= net worth/total assets.

A healthy balance has to be maintained between a business’s assets and its liabilities, the
assets should be enough to cover the liabilities. The stability is reflected in the owner’s stake
(net worth or equity) in the business. This is expressed as a percentage. The higher the net

64
worth (closer to 100%) the safer is the business and the less vulnerable it is to an unexpected
drop in the value of its assets or occasional trading losses.

R2 Dependence on subsidies
Subsidies and grants as a % of total income

In the long term, over dependence on government subsidies to support the business is not
sustainable, in the event that they may be withdrawn and damage the viability of the business.

R3 Level of specialisation
Turnover of main enterprise as a % of total turnover.

This indicator measures the level of specialisation or dependence the business has in one
product. Reliance on a narrow product range is in opposition to sustainability. Businesses that
diversify are at less risk economically, for example from pest and diseases attacks and from
adverse climatic events.

Investments

Here one measure is used:

Capital employed
Tenant’s assets/ hectare

The capital employed in a business represents the assets from which income can be generated.
Therefore measuring the level of these in a business or sector can indicate the health of the
business or sector, a high level being regarded as more healthy. In this case, it is measured
using the tenant’s capital rather that capital held in movable assets such as machinery and
stocks. Tenant’s capital is that part of the capital or assets which a typical tenant would own.
It includes machinery and all types of stocks. For purposes of farm comparison the FBS
system treats all farms as tenanted, and they are put on this basis even if owner occupied.

Efficiency

Here three measures are utilised; firstly in relation to overall outputs and inputs and then in
relation to use of key inputs: labour and machinery

E1 Productive process efficiency

Outputs-inputs / outputs, expressed as a %

This indicator measures the efficiency of the business by analysing the difference between the
outputs and inputs (net profit) expressed as a percentage of the outputs. The resulting
indicator is also known as the profit margin. A low profit margin does not necessarily mean
that a business is not sustainable. This indicator needs to be examined in relation to a
business’s total output or turnover. Some types of business have low profit margins but this
may be compensated by a high turnover, this is common in the retail trade.

E2 Economic efficiency of inputs (labour and machinery)

Net output per £100 spent on labour
Net output per £100 spent on power and machinery

65
Some of the highest costs of a horticultural business are likely to be energy, labour and
machinery use. Therefore, it is important to measure the efficiency of the business in terms of
each of these major inputs. The more efficient business or sector will produce a higher output
per cost spent on these inputs.

4.2.3. Socio-economic dimension of sustainability

Within this dimension there are four components: national economy contribution, security,
human development and the regional economy. Within this dimension the focus is broadened
to include the impact or contribution of the horticultural and agricultural sectors on the
regional and national economy and draws on work completed by Lobley et al (2005). It
examines the overall sales, purchases and employment within a sector. It includes social
aspects such as human capital, which is an important aspect of sustainability. Social
sustainability is normally related to social and human capital. Social capital is the networks of
relationships among persons, firms, and institutions in a society, together with associated
norms of behaviour, trust, cooperation, etc., that enable a society to function effectively.
Human capital is related to the education, skills and training which people have and thus their
ability to contribute effectively to production (Mosley, 2003). Some of these aspects are more
difficult to quantify and therefore this report concentrates on the statistics that are available.

Table 39. Components and indicators for the socio-economic dimension of sustainability.
Component Indicators Max Score
National economy contribution Sales 10
Purchases 10
Employment 10
Security % UK self sufficiency 10
Farmers share of retail price 10
Human development Training 10
Investments 10
Age of growers/farmers 10
Regional economy Level of regional specialisation 10
Contribution to local employment 10
TOTAL 100

Detailed explanation of each socio- economic component and indicator and what they
measure.

National economy contribution

Three indicators are utilised to measure the socio-economic connectivity and importance of
the sector within the wider economy. These are the total sales, total expenditure and numbers
employed. They also measure the potential multiplier effects of the various sectors of
horticulture or agriculture. The higher the value is, the greater the connectivity and
contribution nationally and thus the greater their contribution to sustainable social and
economic development.

66
 N1 Total sales or turnover of sector
Farm or business level sales x the no of hectares involved in production

N2 Total purchases of sector

Farm or business level purchases x the no of hectares involved in
production

N3 Total employment in sector (farm level)

Farm or business level labour units x the no of hectares involved in
production in that sector

Both sales of food and goods, purchases of inputs and services and employment creation
represent injections of money in to the national economy and reflect the ability of a sector to
generate value and in terms of economic connectivity (Lobley, 2005). Employment also
contributes to human self worth and value in society.

Security

Two indicators are used to measure the sectors security or stability / resilience. They cover
food security or self-sufficiency on a national level and security for the producer in terms of
their share of the retail price.

S1 Food security or national self-sufficiency.

Home production as percentage of total supplied in the UK (%)

Although national self-sufficiency is no longer a Defra policy objective, it is still a valuable

indicator of UK agriculture’s ability to meet consumer demand. The indicator is used in
relative terms showing the UK competitiveness or ‘stability / resilience’ of a sector, e.g. a low
self-sufficiency may make economic sense by importing cheaper commodities but it also
illustrates that home production has lost it's edge in this particular sector, especially if self-
sufficiency is decreasing over time as revealed in the trend analysis (Appendix B).

S2 Farmer security
Farmers share of the final retail price (%)

A higher share is desirable, since it shows that the farmer has been able to gain more value
from the commodity and is more likely to have some control over its final price. This value
will also vary depending on much the commodity is processed before it reaches the final
consumer.

Human development

A key element in the sustainability of any sector is the people or human capital involved in it.
Three indicators are used to capture some of this component and they are levels of training,
capital investments and age of the farmer/grower.

67
 H1 Levels of training
Percentage of workforce receiving full training

Defra statistics classifies the training of those employed in agriculture and horticulture on
three levels: having practical training only, having basic training or having full agricultural
training. It is assumed that the greater proportion of the workforce, which has full agricultural
training, leads to a more productive and motivated and fulfilled workforce and that this adds
to sustainability. Full agricultural training is defined as formal training lasting for a minimum
of two years.

H2 Levels of investments
Tenants capital/number of labour units

It is assumed that higher investments (e.g. in machinery) by a business/sector will have

positive benefits in terms of labour productivity, thus the higher the figure the more
sustainable the sector.

H3 Succession
Percentage of farmers/growers in the sector under 40 years

Defra statistics are maintained on the age structure of holders of agricultural and horticultural
business. It is known that the average age of farmers and growers is quite high (>50 years)
and that the number of young people coming into the sector is low, which in the end is not
sustainable. This indicator assumes that the greater amount of younger people (under 40 years
old) in the sector the better.

Regional economy

Many sectors can make a significant contribution to local or regional economies. This is in
terms of bringing money and jobs into the region, which can be multiplied in the local
economy through demand for goods and services. The indicators chosen measure the level of
regional specialisation and contribution to local employment.

R1 Regional specialisation
Proportion of production in each region as a percentage of the total
production in England and Wales

In terms of a particular region, it is assumed that the greater the proportion of specialisation
that a particular region has the greater the benefits it brings to that region. Therefore, greater
concentration or specialisation to regarded as positive.

R2 Contribution to local employment

Total labour units per hectare in that sector.

In this measure the higher the labour units per hectare the higher the score and contribution to
sustainability of that region.

68
 4.2.4. Data sources

It was not possible to find exact matching data for the single crops used to calculate the
environmental footprint (Table 40). Therefore best matches, or proxy data, were searched to
correspondent the environmental with the socio-economic footprint sectors.

Table 40. Crops for which an environmental footprint have been calculated and the
corresponding sectors with short label and the main data sources for the socio-economic
footprint of each sector.
Environmental No Short FBS/Defra Reading Hort.
footprint crop Data:
Glasshouse crop 1 GLASS Specialist glasshouse Group 1(a)
(Tomato)
Brassica, Allium, 2,3,4 VEG. Specialist market garden Group 3(a)
Root crop veg.
Ornamental (Narcissi) 5 FLOWER Specialist flower, hardy Group 3(b)
nursery
Top fruit (Apple) 6 T. FRUIT Specialist fruit Group 7
Strawberry 7 S. FRUIT Specialist fruit Group 8
(polytunnel)
Potatoes, Sugar beet 8, 9 SB, POT General cropping farms
Wheat 10 WHEAT Cereal farms
Dairy 11 DAIRY Dairy
Sheep 12 SHEEP Sheep (LFA)

The horticultural data sources for the indicators used were the annual publications of Reading
University from the years 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 (Vaughan and Crane
1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007). For each environmental footprint crop the
closest proxy was picked. Because it provided a better match in terms of the percentage of the
target crops in the sample, and to guarantee continuity the older FBS classification system
was used for:

• Tomato glasshouse production (GLASS as a short sector title): Group 1(a)

“Glasshouse holdings > 90% gross output protected - mainly edible crops”.
• Outdoor vegetable production (VEG): Group 3(a) “Outdoor horticultural holdings
mainly edible crops”.
• Outdoor flower (Narcissi) and hardy nursery production (FLOWER): Group 3(b)
“Outdoor horticultural holdings mainly non-edible crops”.
• Apple production (TOP F.): Group 7 “Fruit holdings - predominantly top fruit (top
fruit >90% of standard fruit output”.
• Strawberry production (SOFT F.): Group 8 “Fruit holdings – mixed top and soft fruit
(neither top fruit nor soft fruit >90% of standard fruit output)”.

The source of data on soft fruit production, was found to be the weakest in that the sample
was small (5 – 19 holdings, depending on year) and not only did the holdings contain other
soft fruit (raspberries, blackcurrants) they also included top fruit. Therefore, they could not be
considered to represent specialist strawberry holdings and their levels of profitability and use
of assets etc. These holdings have been increasing in the last few years (Figure 2). It is likely
that that strawberries grown under protection (polytunnels) would show similar characteristics

69
to the more intensive horticultural sectors, and that the increase of their growing in recent
years could be an indication of their economic profitability.

Due to the weakness of the soft fruit data available, it was decided to omit the data collected
on soft fruit production from the comparative analysis (The analysis including the limited soft
fruit data is however, shown in the appendix).

In this horticultural data series, 13 consecutive years of data (1993-2005) were available. For
2004 and 2005, the new FBS classification system had to be used, because data were not
provided (Vaughan and Crane 2007). In this publication, also no information on soft fruit is
published, therefore the soft fruit sample is only 11 years long and the 3-year average is taken
from 2001-03 (data only shown in appendix B).

Figure 2. UK strawberry area from 1995 to 2005

UK Strawberry area (ha)

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000
1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

The proxies used for the agricultural production sectors were sourced from the FBS (Farm
Business Survey) online database farm accounts in England (Defra, 2007). The data source
for milk was FBS dairy farms (DAIRY), for sheep (SHEEP) FBS grazing livestock LFS (less
favourable areas), for wheat (WHEAT) FBS cereal farms, and for sugar beet and potatoes
(SB, POT) general cropping farms. In this agricultural data series, eight consecutive years
(1998-2005) were available.

For the calculation of the economic and the socio-economic footprint only the average of the
last three years data available was used. This was in order to iron out any factors related to
any one-year’s data being untypical. The data for the indicators were directly sourced from
the FBS. Sometimes it was necessary to calculate per hectare figures or a quotient as for
‘owner equity’ indicator. For the indicator ‘turnover of main enterprise’ the turnover of the
proxy footprint crop was used.

For the indicators on ‘training’ and ‘succession’ the latest (Defra et al., 2007) UK figures
published in the annual report AUK (Agriculture in the United Kingdom) were used. This
data were also used for ‘UK self sufficiency’ and ‘farmer’s share of the retail price’ indicators
as well as for internal calculations of areas per sector.

Additional data were supplied by Defra’s statistical office in York (Defra Statistics, 2007).
They were able to supply holders age, manager training, assets, net worth and total annual
labour units broken down in wholly or mainly unpaid labour, regular hired labour &
managerial labour and casual & seasonal labour. This data is regularly made publicly
available by Defra, however, only for the agricultural sectors. Horticulture tends to be lumped
together and sector specific data have had to be laboriously sourced, a weakness given the
socio-economic importance of horticulture (see results section 4.3.2).

70
Conversion of data into indicator values

The raw data are shown in appendix B. The final stage of creating each indicator was to take
the raw data and convert it into a relative value, in this case between 0 and 10. For
comparison purposes, the relative range of values was obtained. In all cases the greater the
value the more sustainable the sector is. The value for each indicator is then weighted. For the
eight economic dimension indicators different weights were used (Table 38) for the ten socio-
economic dimension indicators all weights were equal (Table 39). The maximum possible
score for each dimension is 100.

4.3. Results

The individual scores for each of the indicators are shown in Table 41 with fuller detail in
appendix B. These are firstly presented for some sectors in the form of spider or radar
diagrams according to the two dimensions: economic and socio-economic and their various
components, in a later stage the values for each dimension have been summed to see the
overall picture. The main comparison has been between the different horticultural sectors
(glass, vegetables, flowers and ornamentals, top fruit) and then these have been compared
with the agricultural sectors (potatoes and sugar beet, wheat, dairy and sheep).

Table 41: Data table of individual weighted scores for 8 sectors and 19 different economic
and socio-economic indicators. All scores are calculated with full 15 digits, but rounded to
only one digit.
Sectors 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9
Economic Dimension Glass Veg Flower Top F. Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep
Net income per labour unit 10 4 9 2 5 4 4 3
Return on capital 14 20 18 0 10 7 5 1
Owner Equity (%) 8 8 8 9 9 10 9 10
Subsidies (% of turnover) 10 10 10 10 7 4 8 0
Percentage of main enterprise (%) 3 7 0 5 8 6 2 7
Tenant's type asset av. valuation (£/ha) 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
Profit margin (%) 6 9 12 0 15 12 11 6
Net output per £100 cost of power & machinery 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 4
Net output per £100 cost of employed labour 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 3
Sum 73 65 68 34 62 51 46 33
Socio-Economic Dimension
Turnover (£m in UK) 1 4 3 0 2 6 10 3
Purchases (all costs minus labour in sector £m in 1 4 2 0 2 7 10 3
Employed workers in sector 1 7 2 1 1 4 10 4
Level of regional distribution (concentrated rated h 3 9 6 9 6 3 3 3
Total annual labour units/ha 10 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
Home production as % of total supply 2 8 4 3 8 8 10 8
Farmer's share of retail price 10 6 6 6 3 2 4 7
Full training as % of all farm workers in sector 7 2 10 5 9 9 6 3
Tenants capital/annual labour units (£/ha) 5 1 4 2 7 10 6 7
Holders age under 45 years 8 8 6 6 8 7 10 8
Sum 47 51 45 34 45 57 69 45

Total Economic and Socio-Economic 120 116 113 67 107 108 115 78

71
 4.3.1. The economic dimension

Viability (Net Income/labour unit and Return on Capital):

The flower and glasshouse sectors had the highest scores (greater sustainability) for both of
these measures. Potatoes and sugar beet are also quite high. Other horticultural sectors such as
top fruit are at the bottom with negative returns on capital, and other agricultural sectors such
as dairy, sheep and wheat production also have returns on capital below 5%, which would
cannot be regarded as being viable. Overall, we can conclude that horticulture, with the
exception of top fruit, has some of the more economically viable sectors.

Figure 3. Graphical presentation of 9 indicators of the economic dimension in two selected

UK farming sectors: GLASS and DAIRY.

Economic Dimension

Net income per labour unit

Net output per £100 cost of

Return on capital
employed labour

Net output per £100 cost of pow er

Ow ner Equity (%)
& machinery

Profit margin (%) Subsidies (% of turnover)

Tenant's type asset av. valuation

Percentage of main enterprise (%)
(£/ha)

Glass Dairy

Resilience (Owner equity, dependency on subsidies, dependence on main enterprise):

All horticulture and agriculture sectors did not show a high dependence on borrowing, as a
percentage of total assets, with all showing owner equity values of 75% and above. Glass and
flowers are the most indebted with 75% of owner equity and therefore 25% of borrowing
against their assets. All horticultural sectors show a very low dependence on subsidies
accounting for only 1% of turnover; this is a stark difference to the agricultural sectors, which
show a dependence of between 9% (dairy) and 41% (sheep). However, horticultural sectors
do show that they are highly dependent on a single commodity and this is especially so for
glass (62%) and flowers (89%). In terms of resilience, horticulture is mixed with low
dependency on subsidies, but high dependence on single commodities.

Investments (tenants capital/ha)

Glass and flowers dwarf the rest of the sectors with very high investments per hectare.

Efficiency (profit margin, net output/£100 labour and machinery)

72
Horticultural sector profit margins are low, with top fruit showing negative values. Low profit
margins tend to reflect industries which have high turnover and make less per unit sold.
Returns to labour tend to be high for sectors where less labour is used, for example wheat,
potatoes and sugar beet. The remaining sectors are at a similar level of between £211 and
£280, all of which indicates good productivity. Returns to expenditure on machinery are much
higher ranging from £737 for vegetables to £1429 for flowers. Horticulture has some of the
highest returns. We can conclude that horticulture generally has low profit margins and high
returns to spending on machinery.

Figure 4: Summary of economic scores of eight UK agricultural and horticultural sectors.

100
Score (0-100)

50

0
Glass Veg Flower Top F. Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep

Conclusions on economic dimension

Group 1: (glass, flowers, vegetables, potatoes and sugar beet). All these sectors show high
economic viability, with high returns to labour and capital. In terms of resilience they have
low dependence on subsidies, although they are commonly highly specialised and highly
dependent on a small number of crops. All these sectors have high investments per hectare,
especially the glass and flowers ones. They are also generally highly efficient with high profit
margins and returns to labour and machinery.

Group 2: (dairy and wheat). These are less intensive in comparison with group 1. The data
shows that these sectors have high profit margins and relatively high returns to labour and
machinery. However, recent falls in the milk price is likely to have further depressed the dairy
sector whose economics is highly dependent on this.

Group 3: (top fruit and sheep). These are characterised by the lowest returns to labour and
capital. There are however, distinct differences between these two sectors, in terms of
dependence on subsidies and in profit margins. The sheep sector shows the highest
dependence on subsidies and has high profit margins and these two factors are probably
related.

We can observe that, based on these indicators, horticulture has some of the most
economically sustainable sectors, for example glass, flowers and vegetables all being in the
highest group. These have the highest incomes and returns on capital, however, they are less

73
resilient in that they are highly specialised and have lower profit margins. On the other hand
horticulture also contains some of the less sustainable sectors such as top fruit.

4.3.2. The socio-economic dimension analysis

Figure 5. Graphical presentation of 10 indicators of the socio-economic dimension in two

selected UK farming sectors: GLASS and DAIRY.

Socio-Economic Dimension

Turnover (£m in UK)

Purchases (all costs minus labour
Holders age under 45 years
in sector £m in UK)

Tenants capital/annual labour units

Employed w orkers in sector
(£/ha)

Full training as % of all farm Level of regional distribution

w orkers in sector (concentrated rated high)

Farmer's share of retail price Total annual labour units/ha

Home production as % of total

supply

Glass Dairy

The nine sectors (Table 39) can be divided into three in terms of their overall socio-economic
impact. The greatest impact is from dairying, which topped five of the ten indicators. The
middle ground is occupied by six sectors: wheat, vegetables, flowers, glasshouse crops,
potatoes & sugar beet and sheep, while top fruit has the smallest socio-economic impact.

National economic contribution (Total turnover, purchases and employees in sector)

Total turnover assesses the overall size of each sector relative to other sectors and shows that
the dairy industry is the largest sector. Analysis also reveals that the vegetable sector is larger
than the sheep sector and that the ornamental/flower sector is a similar to the sheep sector, a
fact that may not have been appreciated before. All horticultural sectors are high in terms of
employment which shows that although the area devoted to horticulture is small, in terms of
sales, purchase and employment it has considerable influence. It is interesting to note that the
flowers and ornamentals sector is larger than the sheep industry on these indicators. On the
other hand, top fruit is the smallest sector with a lowest overall contribution to the national
economy. Apart from top fruit, horticultural sectors make an important contribution to the
national economy. The economic dimension within the overall socio-economic analysis
captures something of the high output/high input nature of horticulture and the labour units/ha
again reflects its intensity.

74
Security (Self sufficiency and farmer’s share of the retail price)

Apart from vegetables (89%), the horticultural sectors are amongst the lowest in terms of self-
sufficiency, with glass (23%) and top fruit (27%) the lowest. The agricultural sectors are
much more self sufficient ranging from 78% for potatoes and sugar beet to over 100% (some
exports) for milk. This is perhaps an indication that horticulture, with less government
support, operates in a much more competitive global market. It is appreciated that promoting
‘National food self-sufficiency’ is no longer a Defra policy objective and that the indicator is
not necessarily a good guide to food security for the nation. However, with the ‘food miles’
debate and the increasing costs of oil leading to increasing transport costs, and the increasing
role of local food in rural economies, it is still a valid indicator. Alan Spedding writes that
‘The self-sufficiency ratio is still a good broad indicator of UK agricultural ability to meet
consumer demands at home and abroad’5. This indicator was included in this study since there
are important comparisons between horticulture and other agricultural enterprises, with the
horticultural sectors usually having relatively lower levels of self-sufficiency and being open
to international competition.

In terms of the farmer’s share of the retail price in 2006, horticulture has the highest (glass
72% and vegetables 45%) and these have increased since 1998, although top fruit at 42% has
fallen since 1998. This partly reflects that horticulture is largely selling an unprocessed
commodity, in comparison with agricultural commodities such as wheat and milk, which are
processed. From the trend analysis (Appendix B), it is interesting to note that in all the
agricultural sectors the percentage share has fallen.

Human development (training, investment/labour unit, age of holder)

The percentage of the workforce employed in agriculture and horticulture, which has received
full training (formal training lasting for a minimum of 2 years) ranges from 7% (vegetables)
to 35% (flowers). Thus, horticulture contains both the highest in this range and the lowest.
The lower end may reflect the high use of migrant labour, which receives less training. In
terms of investments per labour unit, flowers is high reflecting the capital intensive nature of
the production, the fruit sectors are the lowest, otherwise the remaining horticultural sectors
are below the average for all the sectors. The dairy sector has the highest percentage (22%) of
its holders under 45 years, most other sectors are around the 20% mark, which does not
appear to be very positive. The average under 45 years in horticulture is less than in
agriculture. Overall in this component horticulture appears to be less sustainable than
agriculture.

Regional economic contribution (level of concentration, labour units/ha)

Horticulture contains sectors such as top fruit and vegetable production, which are highly
regionally concentrated, and overall all horticultural sectors are more regionally concentrated
than agricultural ones. Horticulture also uses a lot of labour and therefore this means that
these sectors are very important to the regions where they are situated.

5
Food Security and the UK, RuSource, Spedding, 2003

75
Conclusions on socio-economic dimension

The large size of the dairy and wheat sectors is reflected by the fact that they are ranked one
and two in this dimension, although horticulture, given its smaller scale, performs well and
has a large impact on the national economy. In addition, horticulture is often regionally
concentrated and therefore provides significant regional economic benefits. However, in
terms of security, horticulture provides less UK self-sufficiency and its record on human
development is weaker than agriculture.

Figure 6: Summary of socio-economic scores of eight UK agricultural and horticultural

sectors.

100
Score (0-100)

50

0
Glass Veg Flower Top F. Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep

4.3.3. Bringing the economic and socio-economic dimension together

Figure 7: Addition of economic and socio-economic scores of eight UK agricultural and

horticultural sectors.

200
Socio-Economic
Economic
150
Score (0-200)

100

50

0
Glass Veg Flower Top F. Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep

When the economic and socio-economic indicator scores are added together for the various
sectors we can observe that horticulture contains some of the most sustainable sectors, for
example glass, and flowers, which are the top two sectors and also some of the least

76
sustainable, for example top fruit. It is possible to divide all the crop and livestock sectors into
three groups:

• Group 1: glass, flowers and dairy - the most intensive and profitable sectors, with the
most importance to the national and regional economy.
• Group 2: wheat, potatoes and vegetables- the field based systems, which occupy the
middle ground
• Group 3: sheep and top fruit, which are the least profitable. Apart from low
profitability these sectors do not have a lot in common. Sheep farming is a fairly
extensive form of production and is highly reliable on subsidies. Fruit farming,
however, is potentially quite profitable and could re-emerge as a strong sector if
demand for home-grown fruit increases.

When all the scores are amalgamated into horticultural, arable and livestock, we can observe
that although the horticultural sectors and the two arable and two livestock systems have
similar levels of overall sustainability the arable sector scores the highest and the livestock the
lowest (Table 42). However, horticulture and arable farming score higher than livestock
systems in the economic dimension and lower than livestock in the socio-economic
dimension. This is partly due to the fact that, relatively, the horticulture sectors are smaller
and have lower levels of self-sufficiency but it is difficult to read to much into this level of
comparison.

Table 42. Summary of socio-economic scores of eight UK agricultural and horticultural

sectors.
Horticulture Arable Livestock
Glass, Veg, Flower, Top F. Pot SB, Wheat Dairy, Sheep
Economic 60 56 39
Socio-economic 44 51 57
Total 104 107 97

Trend analysis

The economic and socio-economic analysis was calculated using data from the last three
years. However, for some sectors, data were available for a lot longer period: 13 years for the
sectors, Glass, Veg, Flower and Top Fruit, 11 years for Soft Fruit, and 8 years for the arable
and livestock sectors. This enabled an annual linear trend in percent (using the LINST
function of Excel) and the coefficient of variation (% cv) to be calculated. The first measure
“Trend” gives the direction of an indicator over the last decade. It assumes a linear
development - so oscillation cannot be measured. However, this will show up in a higher
“Var” or coefficient of variation. This can be used as a risk measure to show the general
variation in any specific indicator. As an example, the reading for the indicator “turnover of
main enterprise in percent” in Glass had a positive trend of 1% increase each year. In other
words, the specialisation increased during the last 13 years by 1% each year. The coefficient
of variation is 19% - rather low.

Although only highlights are presented here, the full analysis is contained in appendix B. The
profit margin and return on capital, the key economic indicators, are increasing in all sectors.
They carry, however, a very high variation, especially for return on capital in Veg, Wheat and
Dairy sectors. The total annual labour units per ha are falling in all sectors besides Flowers. In
this sector and in Potato & sugar beet production the casual and seasonal labour units are

77
increasing. In Glass and Veg production there is a clear fall of unpaid labour. The levels of
self-sufficiency have been decreasing in all sectors besides Wheat and Dairy.

4.4. Overall conclusions

The socio-economic indicators and sustainability framework provide a useful way of

comparing the various agricultural and horticultural sectors, although greater amalgamation of
the scores results in less meaningful comparisons. Data is taken from averages over the last
three years; therefore, it does not capture the latest situation in any of the sectors. When taken
together the land based industries show an enormous diversity, from very intensive
glasshouse production to more extensive production of sheep, however, the indicators do
allow some form of comparison. The results highlight that despite the relatively small area
occupied by the more specialised horticultural sectors such as glasshouse production and
flowers & hardy nursery stock they rate as the most socio-economically sustainable sectors
and have similar scores to the dairy sector. The field based systems of wheat, potatoes, sugar
beet and vegetables occupy the middle ground in terms of socio-economic sustainability.
These systems of production have many similarities. The least socio-economically sustainable
sectors are sheep and top fruit, although these sectors show very different characteristics.
Although, the levels of sustainability are similar between agriculture and horticulture, the
indicators paint a picture of much of horticulture as lean and economically viable, competitive
and resilient, although with some much weaker sectors, and certain weak elements such as
human development.

78
5. Socio-economic impact analysis

5.1. England and Wales

Consistent with the objectives of the project, this report considers three dimensions of
sustainability: economic, social and environmental and this ‘triple bottom line’ forms the
basis for the structure of the report. The report draws on interviews with stakeholders which
were conducted in person or by telephone (listed at end). Some use has also been made of
relevant interviews conducted as part of RELU research on the environmental and regulatory
sustainability of biopesticides. In particular, this gave us a spread of grower interviews from
different parts of the country (The Fens, Herefordshire, Sussex). Use was also made of
documentation provided by respondents or from other sources. We are grateful to respondents
for their cooperation, including the comments they made on a draft of the report, but
responsibility for all judgements are ours. It should be emphasised that this report is
concerned with the perceptions of stakeholders and the way in which they frame and prioritise
issues, rather than with making a judgement about whether the statements made are correct or
evidence based.

5.1.1. Economic viability of horticulture

Horticulture is an unsubsidised industry and therefore is in many respects a more

entrepreneurial sector than other aspects of agriculture. As one respondent put it, it is “moving
away from a commodity based industry to something that can compete with imports”. It
should benefit from the debate about a healthier diet and the increasing consumption of fruit
and vegetables. The soft fruit industry has had considerable success here through the use of
polytunnels to produce strawberries and raspberries and other crops, but their use has
encountered environmental opposition principally on the grounds of visual impact in areas of
natural beauty (see case studies on polytunnels).

Horticulture expects a level of government support, but not direct funding. In practice, this is
largely provided through research and development assistance. There has been a swing away
from production based research to research that is more environmentally based. A concern
expressed by a producer organisation was the “dilution of available facilities and people able
to undertake that research. People are not coming through to replace them”.

Although in some respects agriculture can be portrayed as an unconstrained free market, an

area of concern is what is perceived to be the monopolist characteristics of the position of
retailers in the food chain. ‘There is a level you can’t go beyond without compromising
standards, cutting corners. Big pressure on growers. You can only reduce costs so far, getting
to point where many sectors can’t cut out any more costs. Reduced margins mean that as
opportunities are available, they don’t have the ability to invest’.

As one respondent commented, “Some growers can’t stand retailers, others will see them as a
market”. Another respondent commented that lower margins were offset by the advantages of
volume. It was also observed that because the sector was unsubsidised, it had to be
competitive to stay in business and in that respect enjoyed an advantage over other
agricultural sectors.

79
One respondent commented “The risk to viability comes from structure of industry, small
firms, fragmented structure, collaboration between growers sketchy. When it is happening
it’s very good, but a bit of defensiveness”. One response was consolidation through merger
and acquisition into bigger enterprises: “Big growers like [name deleted] are clearly very
successful and have covered many markets”. Smaller operators had in some cases become
niche producers, “niche guys are often very entrepreneurial, very viable”. A third option was
for smaller operators to form part of a co-operative type structure. On the potato side, firms
like McCain buy a lot of crops and had encouraged growers to come together in collaborative
groups. Category management in supermarkets can be another driver for cooperation with
lead growers given a responsibility for managing a number of suppliers.

The point was made by a producer organisation that the environmental footprint had to be
balanced against demands for British produce and the value of the sector to the wider rural
environment. This reflected a wider concern that the environmental footprint could be
constructed in a way that did not sufficiently balance the benefits of the industry against its
costs. A food chain analyst commented: “The yield per hectare is much higher in horticulture
than in the arable area. If one grew more horticultural products, one could reduce imports of
fresh fruit and vegetables. If one reduced horticultural production, the land released in terms
of the total land area would be very small, whereas if one used arable land for horticultural
production, one could increase fruit and vegetable production”.

Two key constraints for the sector are the cost of energy and the availability of labour. These
will be discussed here. The social impact of migrant labour will be discussed in the section on
social sustainability.

5.1.2. Energy costs

These costs are a leading business issue for the protected crops sector in a way that does not
apply to other sectors (tractor fuel has a reduced rate of taxation through the ‘red diesel’
arrangements). The importance of energy costs was highlighted by one grower who
commented that the issue “could destroy what is left of the industry single handily”. There
were particular concerns in 2006 arising from erratic gas prices. There were also concerns
about supply shortages in the winter which in the event did not materialise. Growers make use
of sophisticated computer control systems to minimise the use of energy, for example by
saving energy overnight, but these represent a considerable investment by themselves in a
sector in which margins have been driven down. However, that investment is relatively
insignificant compared to the cost of fuel used, so it is an investment that energy intensive
growers have to make.

There has been experimentation with Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants as a more
energy efficient technology but “fingers got a bit burnt, figures did not stack up very well”.
However, there are many examples where CHP is being used effectively to pursue both
economic and environmental goals. Producing electricity for supply to the grid and using the
waste heat and carbon dioxide for growing is one of the most energy efficient ways of
producing energy. It was argued that it could be one of the best ways in which the
Government could meet its targets for local generation of a more equitable way of dividing
the benefits between grower and CHP provider could be found.

Alternative fuel sources are not readily available. There is some interest in biomass as way of
cutting costs, but this work is in its infancy. Burning straw involves using a waste product

80
without having to transport it long distances. Wood burning technologies require higher
chimneys than gas which may pose planning problems. One producer respondent commented
“Planning policy guidance notes give a presumption on favour of renewable energy
initiatives, not taking that to heart yet. Slow to happen”. The Carbon Trust does have interest
loans, but these are not available to horticulture because of EU state aid rules.

“The Government recognises that the horticulture sector is relatively energy intensive,
contains a large number of smaller companies and is exposed to significant international
competition … Consequently the Government has implemented a special package of
measures … to improve energy efficiency in the sector”. The protected horticulture sector
now has a full Climate Change Levy agreement with government, whereby in return for
meeting agreed energy targets it receives the full 80 per cent rebate on the CCL6. The scheme
administering these agreements for horticulture is run by the NFU.

Beyond that there is little that government can do to cushion impacts. Government is not
going to offer subsidies as it runs counter to general government policies, the budget is not
available and it is not legal in the EU.

5.1.3. Labour

The importance of a reliable seasonal labour supply for horticulture cannot be under stated. A
grower commented, “The logic is to mechanise planting faster, next move will be less people
paid higher wages”. The use of harvesting rigs and table tops will reduce labour requirements,
but these changes will take time to implement. As one respondent not employed in the
industry stated: “The UK horticultural industry and soft fruit in particular has significantly
extended its growing season which means that supermarkets have been able to drive a whole
new market share on the back of partly polytunnels, partly new varieties of crops. Domestic
production of soft fruits and other new field vegetables has increased. Only way that this is
viable is to ensure that there are adequate supplies of labour, long history of migrant labour
coming into the country … Without that labour the industry wouldn’t exist in the shape that it
does today. Much more of produce would be sourced through imports”.

The problems that can arise were illustrated in the spring of 2007 when exceptionally warm
weather meant that there was an increase in both the growth rate of strawberries and demand
for the commodity, combined with a shortage of workers to pick them. A NFU survey of 13
soft fruit and vegetable growers showed that there was likely to be some 2,400 workers less
than the estimated 4,365 needed. The NFU’s chief horticultural adviser, Philip Hudson, said
that Poles and other East Europeans were now less interested in coming to Britain: “Their
standard of living at home has now increased more rapidly than anyone could have projected,
so they are staying at home”7. A normal response to such a problem would be to raise wages,
but growers’ margins are often so small that this may not be possible. Laurence Olins,
chairman of British Summer Fruits, commented, “The possible closure of the [Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Scheme, SAWS] is a bigger threat to the industry than planning
permission and polytunnels”8.

6
www.nfuonline.com/x4534.xml
7
www.news.scotsman.com/index, accessed 30 May 2007
8
www.freshinfo.com/index, accessed 11 June 2007.

81
The difficulties that can arise are illustrated by the case of the German asparagus harvest in
the spring of 2007. Difficulties with finding sufficient casual workers to pick the crop meant
that as much as 15 per cent was left in the ground on some farms. Part of the problem was a
lesser availability of Polish workers because of better opportunities at home or elsewhere. It
was also exacerbated by a new government ruling that unemployed Germans should make up
20 per cent of the asparagus labour force. Of 7,839 potential workers interviewed, 5,233
reported for interview, 2,859 started work and 1,264 were left by the end of the season. It was
also claimed that the Poles were four times faster at picking than the Germans. (Boyes, 2007;
Benolt, 2007).

Although there is an understandable emphasis on the lack of sufficient unskilled labour to

pick crops in the fields or polytunnels, lack of suitable technical staff can be a challenge. A
supermarket chain technical manager commented “There is a shortage of technical people.
Good technologists who know their business are hard to get”. This difficulty in finding
suitable staff was confirmed in grower interviews. It was emphasised that such staff did not
just have to have the required technical knowledge, but also had to be production oriented as
there had to be a commercial element in technical work.

As far as unskilled labour is concerned, why is more use not made of the labour local pool?
Workers from Eastern Europe are “seen as efficient, trustworthy, hard working, well liked” as
a producer organisation employee put it. In the areas of main horticultural activity, rates of
unemployment are quite low. Therefore, as one respondent put it “down to hard core, also
way benefits system operates if you drop out of work takes some time to re-establish your
right to benefit”. Growers indicated that workers drawn from the pool of local unemployed
often had poor work discipline, turning up late or not at all and not working efficiently or
reliably when they were on site. A large scale grower who normally employed 90 peak season
workers argued that one would need to employ another 30 to 40 English workers to achieve
the same level of output. Research suggests that migrant workers have a number of clear
advantages from the perspective of employers. They tended to be more motivated, reliable
and committed than domestic workers. For example, migrants were said to be more likely to
‘demonstrate lower turnover and absenteeism; be prepared to work longer and flexible hours;
be satisfied with their duties and hours of work; and work harder in terms of productivity and
speed’. In the view of some employers, the more favourable work ethic of migrant workers
encouraged domestic workers to work harder. (Dench, Hurstfield, Hill and Ackroyd, 2006:
vi).

5.1.4. Seasonal Agricultural Workers’ Scheme (SAWS)

SAWS is of considerable importance as a supplier of labour to horticulture. In the COMPAS

study, 59 per cent of the sample working in agriculture was employed under SAWS.
(Anderson, Ruhs, Rogaly and Spencer, 2006: 17). The scheme allows workers from outside
the European Economic Area (EEA) to do seasonal agricultural work for farmers and growers
and is run by nine Home Office approved Operators. However, recruitment is now being
restricted by the Home Office to the A29 countries (see case study on polytunnels for a fuller
discussion). The Operators are divided into multiple operators, organisations that act on

9
The two countries that joined the EU in January 2007: Bulgaria and Romania. Citizens of A2 countries have
restricted rights. This applies to working or claiming benefits, and limits access to housing and homelessness
assistance. These restrictions are slightly different than for A8 nations.

82
behalf of other farmers and growers only, and sole operators, farmers and growers meeting
their own need for seasonal labour. ‘Two operators provide workers for farmers in specific
geographic areas, two provide workers for farmers throughout the UK, and five recruit for
their own labour only’ (Anderson, Ruhs, Rogaly and Spencer, 2006: 19).

For example, S & A Produce, the largest strawberry producers in the UK, are an operator in
their own right and employ upwards of 1,300 through SAWS. Operators are expected to
regularly inspect farms to ensure that they are offering appropriate work; looking after health
and safety; and providing clean and sanitary accommodation. Operators are registered with
Work Permits UK which subjects them to inspection.

The scheme was formerly confined to students, but will move towards exclusively recruiting
Romanian and Bulgarian nationals by 1 January 2008 with transitional arrangements in place
in 2007. The SAWS scheme is subject to a strict annual quota. This was initially set at 4000 in
1997 and peaked at 25,000 in 2004. Of 19,732 workers who came to Britain under the SAWS
in 2002, ‘nearly 5,000 were from Poland, 4,000 from the Ukraine, 2,250 from Bulgaria and
about 1,000 each from Russia and Latvia.’ (McKay and Winkelmann-Gleed, 2005: 125). The
quota for 2007 is set at 16,250 places with 40 per cent (6500) for Romanian and Bulgarian
nationals and the remaining 60 per cent (9750) for students from non-EEA countries. Growers
are required to supply accommodation at or near the place of work. One of the researchers
involved in the COMPAS project commented, “What was interesting to note was that the
workers on the [SAWS] had a higher degree of satisfaction with accommodation than others.
Maybe this is because it is regulated, but it is interesting to note given proposals to do away
with the scheme”10.

Participants should be paid at least the national minimum wage for the work and are also
covered by the Agricultural Wages Order. They can take part in the scheme for a minimum of
five months and a maximum of six months at any one time. They can only work on the
SAWS and where they are placed by the Operator. Workers within the scheme can only
change employer with the agreement of the Operator.

SAWS has a number of advantages from the viewpoint of growers. First, it offers flexibility:
During their six months in the country, students might be moved between employers
depending on the availability of work. This provides flexibility and also means that students
in the country under the scheme are kept employed. For example, if the harvest is late on one
farm, SAWS workers might be moved to another where there is work to be done. (Dench,
Hurstfield, Hill and Ackroyd, 2006: 2). In interview, a grower emphasised the need for
flexibility in the system. The supply chain operated on a just on time basis so they could
receive a phone call on a Friday afternoon for four or five more truck loads of commodity.
They were “reliant to the nth degree on East European labour”.

However, there are also elements of inflexibility. ‘[While] SAWS workers are useful when
there is a need for labour for a concentrated period of at least five weeks, they may be too
expensive for the purposes of harvesting consumer and weather related crops, where demand
is unpredictable, intense but short lived. In this case casual labour may be cheaper and more
suitable’. (Anderson, Ruhs, Rogaly and Spencer, 2006: 73). The increase in protected crop
production, and also of the forcing of crops outside their normal season ‘means that the
seasonal nature of agricultural work has also changed – growers often look to employ

10
www.freshinfo.com/index.php?s=n&ss=nd@sid=42064, accessed 11 June 2007

83
temporary staff for eight or nine months, rather than a maximum of six months’. (Dench,
Hurstfield, Hill and Akroyd, 2006: 49). One solution is to stagger intakes, but several growers
‘reported that they would like to keep individuals, who had built up speed and experience, for
a few months longer’. (ibid.: 49).

Retention is an important consideration for growers. As one commented, “SAWS is seen as

vital as it produced agricultural or related undergraduates who came for 20 weeks, were
linked with their universities and could not tempted away by the local pub for an extra 50p an
hour”. One of the advantages of SAWS students was that they ‘were to a degree self
managed, culturally homogeneous, promoting teamwork’, although one grower noted that it
had been found advisable to have teams made up of a single national group rather than mixed
nationalities. For the young workers themselves, SAWS ‘was a rite of passage, an opportunity
to be away from home, both an adventure and challenge, often providing them with a
significant bundle of cash … to take home’. (Simpson, 2007; 7).

A further advantage for growers is that national insurance contributions do not have to be paid
for students under the SAWS scheme. However, a grower emphasised that “it’s not cheap
labour”. Providing a village for the SAWS workers cost £150K a year of which only £50K
was reclaimed in rent. Anything in writing had to be provided in Russian and a local
university was contracted to provide English language training and assessment. If anything
went ‘pear shaped’ with the labour supply, bad media publicity would result.

Growers appear to be generally satisfied with multiple operators such as Concordia where
they use them. Labour providers (often referred to as ‘gangmasters’) have criticised SAWS as
a form of ‘bonded labour’, but they are in competition with SAWS operators. Several labour
providers tried unsuccessfully to become Operators in the last tendering exercise.

Labour costs were estimated by one grower to put about 35 per cent of total operating costs.
Soft fruit in particular is a sector where the supermarkets are price makers and the availability
of a stable and available labour supply is of considerable importance to growers. A lack of
availability of labour could have a severe impact on the soft fruit industry. In this connection
it is important to emphasise that the role of the new Gangmasters Authority is not to regulate
the supply of labour in the industry but the conditions under which that labour is employed.

The changes in SAWS and its uncertain future was a subject of major concern within
horticulture. Concerns were expressed about the quality of Romanian and Bulgarian labour.
One grower felt that SAWS “was under threat because for political reasons because of
adverse publicity over immigrant numbers”. A producer organisation saw changes in the
scheme as a “response to a clamour” that involved a “confusion of seasonal work and
migration”. One argument advanced has been that because government did not give full
employment rights to Bulgarians and Romanians, it felt it had to make a gesture to them
under the SAWS scheme. Policy may have driven by ‘a failure by government to distinguish
between low-skilled and seasonal workers: many of the students worked as tractor drivers,
machines operators and team leaders’. (Simpson, 2007: 7).

84
A811 nationals (from new member states other than Malta and Cyprus that joined the EU in
2004) and operating under the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) do not really offer an
alternative to SAWS as they are seen to be more likely to be attracted to less physically
demanding and better paid jobs in other sectors. If they are attracted to agriculture, they are
perceived as less reliable in terms of attitude and application to work and willingness to stay
in the same job. The NFU has suggested that Ukrainians should be brought once more within
the scope of the SAWS scheme to provide an additional source of labour. At one time
consideration was given to extending the SAWS boundaries, in particular in terms of
including parts of Africa and Asia. However, the A2 change superseded that. In any case,
government would have difficulty with China because of the lack of reciprocal arrangements.

The overall challenge in terms of labour supply was summarised by a respondent not
employed in the industry: “SAWS traditionally provided a flexible supply of labour. Without
that labour the industry wouldn’t exist in the shape that it does today. Much more of that
produce would be sourced through imports. If SAWS is run down and can’t provide an
alternative supply, production will be exported to other countries. What is the balance of
that economically and environmentally to producing inside UK? Should we bring people to
harvest it or harvest it where they live?”.

5.1.5. Social sustainability

What impacts does horticulture, as a major employer of migrant labour, have on the areas in
which it is a major part of the local economy? It is important to distinguish between the
impact of SAWS labour where workers are in the district for a fixed period, are working long
hours and are generally housed on sites that are relatively remote from major concentrations
of population and A8 employees. McKay and Winkelmann-Gleed (2005: 125) found that
SAWS workers had ‘been reasonably well received by their host communities.’ A respondent
not employed in the industry commented “A8 nationals have the right to live in the UK which
SAWS students wouldn’t have had. It’s A8 that is driving more of the pressure on local
authorities than traditional SAWS scheme. A8 nationals can have permanent residence which
has implications for schools, health and other services”. Unfortunately, ‘The WRS statistics
which show the numbers of A8 nationals employed in agriculture are not that accurate. They
are not detailed enough and do not break down into constituent occupations.’ (Home Office,
2005: 3). There is also the question of the incentives to register for WRS in the first place
which means that many A8 nationals who are working in the UK are not registered. £50 is
quite a lot to register even given that registration confers an entitlement to state benefits. A
generally held view is that A8 nationals want to work to earn money and if they can’t find
work they would return home; they are not particularly interested in state benefits.

Nevertheless, they may give some indication of the geographical distribution of workers. An
examination of WRS data reveals ‘clear geographical clusters of areas experiencing high
levels of registration [between May 2004 and September 2006] – around Herefordshire (the
top rural county with a total of 8,156 registrations over the 29 month period), in Lincolnshire
and the Wash and, to some extent, in Yorkshire.’ (Commission for Rural Communities, 2007:

11
The eight countries that joined the EU in January 2004: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Citizens of A8 nations have restricted rights to enter the UK labour market or
claim benefits, and limited access to housing and homelessness assistance. The restrictions on A8 nationals are
different than for A2 nationals (Bulgaria and Romania).

85
10). If one looks at migrant worker arrivals in relation to the local labour force, Boston
‘shows the highest ratio of registrations relative to the local labour force of all the English
districts, with some 1,600 WRS registrations per 10,000 people of working age.’
(Commission for Rural Communities, 2007: 11). There are large pockets of migrant workers
employed in agriculture and horticulture ‘located around Ely, Wisbech and King’s Lynn’.
(Mc Kay and Winkelmann-Gleed, 2005: 123).

Whilst it is evident that there are particular concentrations of employment related to the
cultivation of protected crops and field vegetables, there is not necessarily a close match
between place of work and place of residence, ‘It is very difficult to put a figure on the
number of migrant workers in South Lincolnshire at any one time. Its rural setting means that
workers can travel long distances to where they work. People living in Cambridgeshire,
Suffolk, Norfolk and the Midlands are taken to work by bus in South Lincolnshire on a daily
basis. Many migrant workers have accommodation linked to their job, if they change their
job, they have to change their accommodation and many follow better job opportunities in
quick succession. This is a very fluid workforce and one that can change rapidly.’ (Zaronaite
and Tirzite, 2006: 11)

This very fluidity makes it difficult for local authorities to devise appropriate responses, even
if they have sufficient resources available to them. There is a ‘perception … that EU labour
generally bring over their dependants which puts severe pressure on local services, police,
schooling, medical provision, housing etc.’ (Home Office, 2005: 2). One example that was
referred to was the growth of concentrations of Portuguese nationals in various parts of the
country who are entitled to free movement of labour within the EU, although it was suggested
by one respondent that some of these might be illegal Brazilian workers with Portuguese
papers. For Arun District Council in Sussex, the main issues are ‘houses in multiple
occupation, council housing, revenue and benefits, and community safety’12.

Medical provision is one area of difficulty. ‘There are a significant number of migrant
workers that are not registered with a General Practitioner. This can put pressure on local
Accident and Emergency Departments’. (Commission for Rural Communities, 2007: 5).
Because they are generally relatively young ‘migrant workers are less likely to need to access
a doctor at all because they were healthy’. (McKay and Winkelmann-Gleed, 2005: 170).
However, they may be at risk of workplace accidents and getting registered with a local GP
may not be easy because of full lists.

Demographic and other differences between migrant workers and the host population can be a
source of tension. In South Lincolnshire, ‘There is … a difference between the current local
average working age of 41 years, against 25-34 years for migrant workers. Migrant workers
are proving to be younger and more competitive in the labour market than the local
population’. (Zaronaite and Tirzite, 2006: 11). ‘There may also be some inter-generational
issues and tensions arising in those areas where the older indigenous community is faced by
an influx of younger in-migrants.’ (Commission for Rural Communities, 2007: 18). These
are often areas without a history of international migration. The greatest increases in crimes
reported as being racially or religiously aggravated between 2001/02 and 2004/05 have been
in predominantly rural areas, a 90 per cent increase in the most rural areas. However, it must
be emphasised that the total volume of such incidents is still far smaller than in urban areas. In
South Lincolnshire survey evidence shows that ‘the majority of local people who know
migrant workers (52.5%) have a positive attitude and understand the reasons why they are

12
www.idea.gov.uk/ifk/core/page.do?pageId=6386780, accessed 14 June 2007

86
here … People who do not know any migrant workers have equally positive (37.5%) and
negative (37.5%) attitudes’. (Zaronaite and Tiritze, 2006: 98).

Proactive strategies can be taken to deal with community cohesion issues. Lincolnshire
Police have a Countywide Community Cohesion Agenda which recognises the growing
diversity of the county. They have sponsored two conferences on community cohesion. At the
second conference held in September 2006: ‘The conference aimed to highlight and reinforce
the increasing need to recognise that community cohesion issues do affect a quiet rural county
such as Lincolnshire … The conference gave particular emphasis to the considerable rural
impact of inward migration to Lincolnshire by workers from the former Eastern European
‘Accession 8’ countries … Although it is accepted that there are many other factors
influencing community cohesion, migration is now acknowledged as the most likely to cause
a break down of community cohesion in the county’. (Lincolnshire Police Authority, 2007: 1)
Arun District Council organised a national Expanding Communities conference in March
2007 to debate the growth of migrant workers in the UK. ‘A key element of this conference
was to draw attention to the positive things migrant workers have brought to Arun and West
Sussex as a whole’13.

Earlier work on the Portuguese community in Littlehampton informed work with Eastern
European communities. A series of consultation meetings were held with Latvian, Lithuanian
and Polish residents leading to the establishment of an advisory group with representatives
from the different communities.

It is important to retain a sense of proportion about the social impacts of migrant workers on
rural communities. Horticulture can make a significant contribution to a local economy as
well as providing consumers with healthy produce at affordable prices. Particular cases of
exploitation of migrant workers understandably attract considerable attention, but should not
be seen as representative of the general picture. The main objective for the Gangmaster
Licensing Authority (GLA) has been to reduce the level of exploitative activity. GLA
licensing standards reinforce legal rights that workers have. Workers can be interviewed as
part of the licensing application process. More generally, ‘It is important to avoid portraying
migrant workers in horticulture as victims – there is a range of employment conditions across
the country and some people choose to work hard at low wages for a period as a temporary
measure and do not want that choice to be denied’. (Rogaly, 2007: 8).

Tensions may arise in particular localities where there is a sudden influx of migrants, but
these can be managed proactively by local authorities, police forces and other statutory
bodies. The SAWS scheme has the merit of supplying agriculture with a reliable and well
educated temporary workforce, who generally leave with positive impressions of Britain and
do not have the impact on localities that longer-term migrants with dependants have.

5.1.6. Environmental sustainability

Horticulture occupies a small proportion of total farmed area, but it is a relatively intensive
form of production meeting needs for continuous supply. Its impact may therefore be
disproportionate to the area utilised. The Chairman of the NFU Board for Horticulture,
Richard Hirst, has suggested that any carbon footprint measure should not be a carbon

13
www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=6386780, accessed 14 June 2007

87
footprint alone, but should examine a production system as a whole in terms of its
environmental impact “That’s why I favour an environmental footprint that takes in
management of the countryside as well as the measurement of carbon expended. A carbon
footprint alone may put some sectors of horticulture in a very harsh light” (Commercial
Grower, 17 May 2007: 13).

Respondents stressed the importance of climate change as a driver of the issues.

Sustainability was essentially concerned with future generations and a longer a look was
taken into the future, the more important climate change would be. One respondent argued
that the likelihood of an increased incidence of extreme weather events meant that particular
care needed to be taken over issues such as soil, water and flood plains. A respondent from a
national amenity organisation noted that an increased incidence of flash floods as a result of
climate change could lead to more diffuse pollution problems. The carbon footprint of
fertilisers and pesticides and distribution systems required careful attention.

A producer organisation respondent emphasised the question of how farmers and growers
perceived the issue of climate change. They tend to focus on issues which demanded a
business response. In terms of how climate change might impact on pests and diseases, the
exact mechanisms were more difficult to predict. They were more likely to respond to specific
challenges such as water use. Survey evidence showed that of those impacted by the 2006
drought, two-thirds thought that climate change was affecting them, among those not
impacted, two-thirds thought not. The nurseries sector is very weather sensitive, even though
its season is being extended. Climate change was likely to lead to more variable weather.
Spring was the most volatile period, a cold, wet spring as in 2006 could hit sales.

A respondent from a producer organisation thought that climate change should be dominant in
the analysis, the major story. Its importance should not be underestimated, but there is a risk
that it may become so dominant in discourse about environmental policy that it drives out
other considerations that are important.

5.1.7. The contribution of retailers

Some respondents suggested that retailer influence on the food chain could be used to drive
more environmentally benign and effective policies. A respondent from an environmental
organisation commented “The opportunities for horticulture to be environmentally benign are
very closely linked into its retailers and quality specification by retail”. A producer
organisation respondent thought that retailers were always looking for opportunities to
enhance their green credentials and could be quicker to respond than producers in that respect.
Another producer organisation respondent argued that retailers had a big role in terms of the
interface with the consumer, in particular in terms of understandings of what was meant by
‘quality’.

These arguments are echoed by Knight (2007: 12) who draws attention to the contrast
between the fact that a supermarket has to carry out an environmental impact assessment of a
new building but could ‘fill itself with products whose embedded carbon, natural resource use
and pollution footprints have not been considered.’ Work by the Roundtable on Sustainable
Consumption found that where greener versions of products had been adopted, interventions
by government or business had been important. ‘The solution, they concluded, lies with the
big brands and retail chains. It is the choices they make with their main product ranges that
will make the difference [between] meeting global challenges and dismal failure’. In

88
particular, the Roundtable advanced ‘the concept of “choice editing” where retailers use
sustainability as a criterion for deciding which products to make available to consumers’.
(Knight, 2007: 12).

Action to deal with the environmental footprint of horticulture cannot be taken just by the
industry. Compared with other sectors of agriculture, the chain is a relatively short one in the
sense that there is little further processing of the commodity once it has been lifted other than
sorting, washing and packing which may include attaching the supermarket’s label. Therefore,
decisions taken by retailers, who also improve the information available to consumers, feed
back relatively quickly to the ways in which commodities are produced.

5.1.8. Energy

Many of the issues in this area have already been discussed in relation to energy costs (section
5.1.2). The sector is an energy intensive one, using considerable amounts of gas and
electricity, although polytunnels offer a way of extending the growing season without using
heat. Nevertheless, as a food chain analyst commented, “The energy impact of horticulture is
very big, hard not to start there”. As climate change becomes a key driver of policy, the
framing of issues may change. For example, the use of peat by nurseries was a conservation
issue, but is now defined as a climate change issue because of the release of carbon from
cutting peat. Producers pointed out that the environmental footprint of energy use by the
sector has to be balanced against other considerations like demands for British produce and
the value of the business to the wider rural environment.

5.1.9. Water

Water abstraction and its management in terms of efficacy of application represent a major
challenge for the sector. Historically water has been a low contributor to production costs, but
research is focusing on application efficiency. The increased incidence of flash floods during
to extreme weather events resulting from climate change could lead to more diffuse pollution
problems.

From a producer perspective, public water supply demand was increasing and per capita water
use was increasing. Per capita water consumption was higher in the South East than anywhere
else, but this was where there was less recharge into aquifers because of the prevalence of
concrete surfaces. A challenge for horticulture was that it needed water at the time when the
weather was driest. Abstractors from rivers could be restricted in the amount they abstract,
although one mechanism was voluntary self-regulation through farmer organised abstraction
groups, particularly in East Anglia, which provide a mechanism for dialogue with the
Environment Agency. It was noted that drought orders could pose particular problems for
bedding plant growers with sales severely affected. Concern was also expressed about policy
in relation to coastal realignments and how the groundwater/saline interface might be
affected.

Potatoes represent the biggest irrigated crop in the sector with field vegetables a close second.
From an amenity perspective, it was argued that increased potato acreages had negative
impacts on fluvial plains with severe effects on spawning grounds. It was thought that potato
growing had been damaging to biodiversity and had made huge demands on water for

89
irrigation. It was felt that this was another area in which retailers might have a role to play,
particularly in terms of encouraging recycling and grey water use.

5.1.10. Crop diseases

Reference was made to the challenge of controlling existing diseases with an array of crop
protection products that is diminishing in terms of regulation and demands made by retailers.
There was also a concern expressed about novel diseases resulting from greater global trade
or climate change in terms of a ‘pathogen that is off spectrum at the moment’. An issue of
concern was who is liable for wider environmental damage. The outbreak of potato ring rot
in mid-Wales was referred to in terms of the protection of businesses against the introduction
of individual pathogens.

5.1.11. Fertilisers and pesticides

Pollution issues in relation to fertilisers were identified in the nursery sector where particular
use is made of controlled release fertilisers. These are low risk, but there are concerns about
leaching, particularly in the context of intense rainfall as the result of climate change.
However, with their higher value crops and environmental specifications from supermarkets,
horticulturalists may be better placed to take mitigation measures than farmers growing broad
acre crops.

Nurseries are seen as a potential source of point source pollution which may cause problems
in water courses as a result of nutrients. An issue here would be whether nurseries use
fertilisers in accordance with good agricultural practice, in other words to meet crop
requirement but no more. For major crops, government has funded research to identify and
promote the use of optimum fertiliser rates.

Some pesticides are seen as a particular problem in turns of water pollution, although bio-
beds are very useful in reducing point source pollution. However, their use is decreasing in
the context of the wider use of integrated crop management and integrated pest management.
One nursery that was visited was using bio beds where pesticide washings were sprayed and
regular monitoring showed no pollution of an adjacent stream. Protected crops offer the best
market for biological control agents because it is a controlled environment and also because
of the need to avoid damaging pollinating bees used for some crops.

5.1.12. Landscape impacts

These have been most acutely felt in relation to the issue of polytunnels which forms the
subject of a separate case study. However, broader concerns were expressed from an amenity
perspective about the impact of horticulture on the landscape with the argument being made
that the pressure for local food would in some respects ‘have a disastrous environmental
footprint because horticulture is very intensive and not very rural’. In particular, it was argued
by a respondent from a national amenity organisation that in the Vale of Evesham there was
“tension between fallow, semi-cultivated sites, poly tunnel structures without polythene,
driven over fields with large gates, utilitarian shelter belts with inappropriate trees such as
poplars, doesn’t lend itself to semi-natural character”.

90
 5.1.13. Biodiversity

RSPB’s Farmland Adviser stated that they had done relatively little work on horticulture “as
the area under horticulture is generally not large enough to have more than local impacts on
bird populations. My impression is that intensive horticulture is generally not conducive to
field-nesting birds, and the pesticide programme usually ensures that it is not particularly
useful for foraging for weed seeds or insects, either”.

RSPB would like to develop more ideas for supporting environmental management of
horticultural land. It was observed “Less intensive market gardening systems can often be a
very productive foraging area for a wide range of seed-eating and insectivorous birds.
Flowering and seeding weeds, particularly in the fallow areas, and the diversity of crops
themselves ensure that there are plenty of opportunities for a wide range of insects to exploit.
We encourage horticulturalists to adopt environmental stewardship measures, making
particular use of the field margin management options”.

The RSPB has produced a guidance note on ‘Helping birds on horticultural land with Entry
Level Stewardship’ emphasising the importance of safe nesting habitat, summer food and
winter food. Horticultural land qualifies for buffering in-field ponds on arable land at 400
points per hectare. It also qualifies at 400 points per hectare for uncropped, cultivated margins
on arable land. For winter food the RSPB recommends the use of wild bird seed mixtures,
worth 450 points per hectare.

5.1.14. Conclusions

Horticulture is a sector that faces a number of challenges in terms of its economic

sustainability. It faces pressures on margins combined with demands for higher quality from
retailers. However, because it has existed in a subsidy free environment, it may be better
placed to respond to these challenges than other sectors of agriculture. The prospect of rising
energy costs is a major challenge for protected crops.

Horticulture is generally more labour intensive than other agricultural sectors. Its ability to
provide a reliable supply of competitively priced home grown commodities has been
substantially dependent on the availability of a consistent supply of migrant labour which is
prized for its reliability and work rate in relation to local labour. The SAWS scheme has been
particularly valued in this regard and A8 labour is not substitute for it. The future viability of
the industry is dependent on the continued existence of SAWS in some forms. It is also more
socially sustainable as it has fewer impacts on local communities and public services than A8
labour.

The sector is concerned that any discussion of its environmental footprint should take account
not just of its carbon footprint, but also its environmental benefits such as a reduction in food
miles, although this is an area where further work is needed and is being undertaken as part of
another Defra project. Stakeholders perceive the principal environmental impacts to be in
relation to energy use and water abstraction and in both these areas the sector (including
potatoes) is perceived to have greater impacts than other agricultural sectors. The landscape
impacts of the sector can also be substantial, although this issue is principally discussed in
relation to the case study on polytunnels.

91
The environmental footprint of horticulture is necessarily going to be substantial in relation to
the area of land occupied. However, this needs to be seen in a wider context. Much depends
on how horticulture is conducted, e.g., in terms of energy use, water management, pesticide
and fertiliser use and landscape impacts. The Horticultural Trades Association is working on
an environmental strategy which seeks to develop a comprehensive approach to the
challenges faced by its members (garden centres and other garden retail businesses,
landscapers, growers and suppliers to the garden trade).

It is interesting that a number of respondents draw attention to the shortness of the supply
chain in horticulture compared with other agricultural sectors, for example what was
described by one respondent as “the more complex supply chain in red meats”. This was seen
as presenting opportunities for retailers to encourage higher quality standards that would help
the management of environmental concerns. Above all, as a food analyst commented “The
comparison with agriculture has to take into account what you need to have a decent diet and
how that is provided. It is important for any analysis to consider not just costs but also
benefits”.

Appendix - interviews

Producer organisations 8
National environmental organisations 3 (1 by E mail)
Growers 6* (1 by telephone)
Government departments/agencies 5 (2 by telephone)
Local environmental activists 3
Food chain organisations 2
Total respondents = 27
*Two growers interviewed as part of RELU project

5.2. Scotland

5.2.1. Introduction

The remit for the work reported herein was to meet with key Scottish stakeholder groups to
identify issues that they thought were pertinent to the environmental impact of the
horticultural sector (incl. potatoes).

The report that follows is based primarily upon interviews with key stakeholders in Scotland
(and some in England). Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone and were wide
ranging and largely unstructured. However, core themes in all interviews were the ecological,
economic and social impacts of horticulture (and potato) industries in Scotland. The list of
interviewees is located at the end of the report14. Scottish media coverage of horticultural
issues and public domain reports are utilised where salient.

14
It is important to register our gratitude for the time provided by interviewees to share their views and to field
supplementary questions. However, all responsibility for interpretations is ours.

92
The overall project brief was to explore the ‘environmental footprint’ of horticulture (incl.
potatoes) in Scotland. The term ‘environmental’ was applied in its broadest sense. This report
is therefore structured around what are generally regarded as the three dimensions of
sustainability: economic, social and environmental/ecological.

It should be noted that the Scottish horticultural sector covers a broad scope of production,
including ornamentals, vegetables, soft fruits and potatoes. Indeed, the Scottish potato sector
is a mixture of seed and ware; both very separate industries in their own right. The report
necessarily takes a general approach and speaks of the horticulture sector as though it were a
single entity. While attempts are made to address variations within the report, its limited
scope means that this may not always have been possible. It is conceded that there may be
some significant variations within the sector not addressed in the report that follows.

5.2.2. Economic Issues

Horticulture is a special sector in that it has not historically attracted much in the way of
subsidy or governmental support. Interviewees generally identified this as a factor that shaped
the way the industry was organised and the types of familiarity that government and other
stakeholders had of the industry sector. Industry groups remarked that government seemed to
take an arms length approach, for reasons of history and also because of the perception that it
had less complicated supply chains (direct between producer to distributor/seller/retailer)15.

In Scotland, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD)
indicated that its primary intervention in the sector was in funding R&D and in disease
control issues. It focuses its R&D resources on the production of potatoes and raspberries.
This reflects an agreement with DEFRA to avoid overlaps in funding. In practice this means
that SEERAD funds research through the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI). It
estimated annual funding of £4 million for the potato sector.

There was no strong sense from the industry stakeholder interviewed that they sought more
engagement from government. But they clearly had concerns over maintaining extant levels
of R&D support and related institutional capacity. More generally industry sought less
government involvement, principally a lighter touch with respect to regulations around water
pricing, labour supply and pesticide registration (see below). These were considered to be
adding costs that threatened viability.

In evaluating the environmental impact of the industry, concerns over economic viability
emerged as a key theme. It is well established that the economics of an industry impact on the
way resources are managed and the time horizon over which management decisions are made.
In terms of an environmental footprint, understanding economic viability going forward
provides insights into questions of impact. More generally, industry respondents were keen
that any ‘environmental footprint’ weight up ecological impacts along side economic
viability. Several references were made to the clash between imperatives of locally grown
produce and ecologically sound production systems. Indeed, one agri-environmental group
commented that there should be caution in swinging too far in any one direction – there needs
to be balance (see concluding section).

15
The industry comparator offered at interview was the red meat sector.

93
Most stakeholders had a view on the economic viability of the industry. Nearly all highlighted
the cyclical or at least fluctuating nature of viability. This type of observation is not surprising
and common to most agricultural (and primary) industries. Nevertheless, three areas were
often mentioned as of particular concern in relation to industry economic viability: labour
availability and cost; critical industry mass; and relationship with supply chain actors
(principally supermarkets).

Labour

As compared to other industry sectors, the agricultural workforce is not well educated. Lantra
(formerly the Agricultural Training Board) has highlighted the fact that 21% of rural workers
have no vocational qualifications and has been discussing the need to address skills-gaps in
such industries (Aberdeen Press and Journal, 2005). Raising the educational standards of the
rural workforce is identified as central to increasing productivity and efficiency, in addition to
retaining staff over the long term (see Lantra 2006).

But the cost of that same labour is an obvious issue. In relation to price, one producer group
argued that most labour is unskilled and should not be awarded more than the minimum wage.
It should not be considered ‘agricultural’ employment in such a case. This was a reference to
its view that the Agricultural Wages Board inflated costs.

Aside from the educational standards of the workforce, the issue that attracted most attention
was that of migrant or seasonal labour. It is undeniable that Scottish horticulture is heavily
reliant on seasonal labour. The cost, reliability and quality of that labour are critical to the
economic viability of the sector. Migrant workers have been important for a long period of
time to the Scottish agricultural sector. However the influx of Eastern European migrants to
Scotland over the past few years has raised its profile as an issue. The East of Scotland,
particularly Angus and Fife, are areas that are characterised by high levels of horticultural and
potato production. They are also areas where large numbers of migrants have relocated.

Migration is a reserved matter, so the conditions are similar for England and Scotland.
However it is worth recognising that Scotland has made a point of encouraging skilled
migrants under its ‘Fresh Talent’ initiative16. As such, in Scotland, there is arguably a political
climate that views migration generally as a necessary part of a broader economic development
strategy. In agriculture generally, as will be evident below, the enlargement of the workforce
through migration is viewed as a necessary element to longer-term economic viability. This is
similar across other key public service and service sectors in Scotland (e.g. health, transport
and construction).

Migrant workers in horticultural industries enter the UK under one of two schemes, each with
differing roles. Some migrants come for short periods of time from outside the European
Economic Area (EEA) (incl. Bulgaria and Romania) and are allowed entry under the Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). Individuals seeking entry under the SAWS system
are only able to be recruited by ‘Operators’ who are licensed by Work Permits UK. The
second group of migrants are individuals, mostly from A8 nations, who enter as EU citizens
and register under the Workers Registration Scheme (WRS).

16
www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/working_in_the_uk/en/homepage/schemes_and_programmes/fresh_talent__work
ing.html?

94
Scottish figures establish that the majority of migrants from A8 countries under the Workers
Registration Scheme (WRS), and who are employed in Scottish agriculture, work as crop
harvesters, farm/workers/farm hands, or fruit pickers (see Vergunst 2007). The research
indicated that even for WRS entrants, the route into agricultural employment is most likely
through employment agencies. There is some concern that as the A8 population moves on to
seek better jobs that this source will dwindle; hence a focus on the A2 nations of Romania and
Bulgaria to take up some of the slack.

The findings of broader UK research on the attitudes of employers to migrant workers (see
Anderson et al., 2006) – that they are reliable, hardworking and fill posts that locals would
not – were evident in the views of those interviewed in Scotland. A representative of a
landowners group remarked that “everyone knows migrant workers are extremely important,
they are highly valued resources. You cannot operate without them”. He continued to note
that “now there are not many itinerate populations in Scotland and local people willing to do
this work, therefore we rely heavily on migrant workers”. A producer body in Scotland raised
concerns over the cost (and quality) of seasonal labour, highlighting that constraints on
SAWS entry reduced reliable and semi-skilled labour. They said “In soft fruit and vegetables
particularly, wages and labour shortages are principal problems. It is increasingly difficult to
get labour when it is required and at an affordable price”. EU accession was considered to
have raised the cost of labour generally. Again a producer body noted ‘In terms of
availability, there have been past problems with the availability of people from Eastern
Europe. Accession of CEE nations has increased the cost of labour. Restrictions of the scheme
for student visas stopped flow of this important group. It is getting better’.

Scottish Executive respondents considered that shortages of labour were largely consigned to
the past. One said “It has been an issue. I have had some representations from soft fruit
producers in the past about Home Office rules stopping Eastern European workers coming
across. But not recently. The biggest issue now is probably that workers do not want to
operate in the housing offered by growers – the standards have not risen”. This sentiment,
regarding the historical nature of this issue, was echoed by a UK trade association which said
“This is not so much an issue on farms anymore, as technology does the harvesting. In terms
of sorting and packing, East European labour has filled gaps where local people are not
interested in such seasonal work”.

It may be the case that the English and Scottish contexts differ in respect of shortages of
labour. In an article highlighting English concerns over a lack of staff to pick berries, the
Scottish media reported that Fife growers had so far had no such shortfall – but anticipated it
could emerge if the weather stayed good. Indeed one report said ‘Peter Marshall and Co near
Alyth … had had possibly their biggest number of applicants ever, with 400 taken on for June
to August and 1000 to 1500 turned away’ (Dundee Courier, 2007). However the same article
did highlight the impact that government cuts in SAWS numbers could have on plugging the
seasonal gap left when university students return to study. The evidence and opinions on
shortages are somewhat mixed.

Other industry respondents suggested that as the current generation of long-term local
workers retire that the next generation of local people will be unlikely to take up the posts.
Thus there will likely be a growing rather than diminishing reliance on migrant workers. A
2003 report by a Scottish rural adviser identified that ‘in low-paid, unpopular occupations like
agriculture and horticulture … serious labour shortages are becoming a fact of life’, stating
that ‘the number of full-time farm workers has fallen 17 per cent in the past four years’

95
(Stewart 2003, 17). Against this backdrop, migrant workers – both permanent and temporary
– are a key plank in any industry policy going forward.

There are, however, concerns about the continuity of migrant labour into the longer term. A
recent report for the Scottish Executive argues that ‘…the supply of migrant labour is
anticipated to dwindle as a result of improving living conditions in accession countries’
(Vergunst 2007). In order to reverse this potentiality it recommends, ‘increasing the financial
incentives of seasonal agricultural work’, looking at ‘a one-year programme of seasonal
agricultural work’, the provision of ‘English language skills training and job search’ and
ensuring ‘access to migrant workers through the SAWS’ (Vergunst 2007, 4). There is no hint
at this stage as to how the Executive or industry may respond.

Apart from overall numbers of migrant workers, concerns have been raised over the welfare
and rights of such workers. This was particularly the case in connection with so-called
gangmasters, who organise and sell temporary labour services, particularly in the agricultural
sector. To address concerns, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, established the
Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). Several interviewees raised concerns about the
impact of the Gangmasters Legislation on flexible working practices. It was commented by
one industry body that “it hinders labour being moved from one enterprise to another or
shared. For example if weather is bad they cannot go from outside work with one producer to
help another producer inside”.

In Scotland, the GLA has been proactive in informing migrant workers in horticultural
industries of their rights. The GLA launched a campaign in Tayside to advise Polish and
Portuguese workers in horticulture industry of their rights – and to get employers to comply
with relevant legislation (Aberdeen Press and Journal 2006, 7).17

Role of Supermarkets

The power of supply chain actors, particularly supermarkets, was highlighted by industry
respondents. Many made reference to the Competition Commission’s Inquiry into the Grocery
Market currently underway18. There was mention that growers are varied in their approach to
supermarket power. Some view them as a valuable sales channel while others view them as an
unhelpful dominant influence. However the general consensus was that they are very
influential over prices, and also over quality standards or parameters (e.g. controls over
blemishes, size ranges).

The Scottish Executive was concerned about the poor margins for smaller producers, and was
keen to emphasise the desire for all aspects of the supply chain to support one another’s
viability. An interviewee from the Scottish Executive explained “The role of supermarkets in
cutting margins for smaller producers has been a concern. Ross Finnie [the then Rural Affairs
Minister] has been vocal in criticising supply chain relations, but he is not singling out any
part of the chain – he wants equitable relations so all can survive”. This general sentiment –
that all parties needed to create a sustainable position for one another – was shared by all
interviewees expressing a view on this matter.

17
Migrant labour as it relates to housing, social integration and the impact on local services is addressed in the
section on social issues
18
www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2006/grocery/index.htm

96
A producer group in Scotland pointed to the dominance of supermarkets as an issue. The
respondent remarked that “Supermarkets are a big issue. There is great difficulty in
addressing the problem of producer price”. He explained that where practices are unfair the
process for lodging objections was difficult; “The competition authorities demand written and
signed statements from farmers, but they are unwilling to do so. Once they are off side with
supermarkets they may as well give up”. This is a reference to the Supermarket Code of
Practice which was put in place as a dispute resolution tool after the 2000 report into
Supermarkets by the Competition Commission. In its submission to the Competition
Commission inquiry, the NFUS stated that the Code ‘is widely flouted and has been rarely
used to settle disputes due to a fear among suppliers of complaining’ (NFUS 2006). In the
same submission the NFUS argues that ‘an increasing number of suppliers and food
producers now receive prices below the cost of production’ (ibid).

As mentioned earlier, the horticultural sector is very diverse. And practices and experiences
differ. A producer group explained “The soft fruit sector is doing well with supermarkets. The
industry organised itself, to the point where it imports fruit from elsewhere (outside UK) to
cover domestic supply gaps. The vegetable sector is so diverse however that it has not been as
organised”.

The pricing policies of supermarkets can have quite complex knock-on effects within a sector.
One potato industry group explained that retailers’ pricing for ware potatoes had changed the
viability of the seed sector. He said “The shift from seed to ware is because of a drop in price
for seed. This is in turn because of downward pressure on ware potato prices from
supermarkets and processing buyers”. This highlights the complexity in managing viability in
supply chains. The NFUS campaigned for a better deal on potato prices during 2005-6. It was
reported that ‘the big four retailers were only getting £80-£100 per tonne for their crops, in
spite of the price being paid by chip shops and others now hitting £300’ (Watson 2006, 21).
The NFUS President claimed that ‘… the supermarkets have got the lid on so tight on that
supply chain’. The supermarkets argue that they paid on a ‘cost-plus’ system which
guarantees profitability – and that in good times farmers forgo premiums but that in bad times
the supermarkets take the loss.

Other concerns around viability emerged from the concentration – or at least the contraction
in the processing sector in Scotland. An industry group used the sugar beet example to make
the point:

‘The sector suffers from problems with processing, even though competition authority
recently said there were no problems. The example of sugar beet shows how a decline in
processing capacity in Scotland has a knock on effect on the sectors profitability. It leads to a
loss of production to England as cost of transport to suitable processing facilities is too high.
There is a risk of losing processing capacity in the horticultural sector in Scotland’.

A similar argument was put by a trade association, which explained that there is almost no
processing of potato in Scotland. The industry pointed out that, apart from 4 packers (each
aligned to a major supermarket chain), most potatoes are shipped for processing in England.
Cooperatives are not well developed in the sector, but there are some examples. The East of
Scotland Growers in Cupar, Angus, is a cooperative of fresh vegetable growers both
producing and processing vegetables. In the seed potato sector, Scott Country Seed Potatoes
is a cooperative of nine seed potato producers19.

19
www.scottcountryseedpotatoes.co.uk/

97
Critical Mass

Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the overall drop in size of the horticultural
sector – and its constituent parts – may have an adverse impact on the industry’s long-term
viability. The trend towards farm consolidation as a response to falling margins was noted as
a feature of Scottish horticulture. This concern was also evident with respect to R&D
generally (and in the seed potato sector specifically) and in relation to the processing sector in
Scotland.

Research and development is deemed central to sustaining the competitive advantage of the
Scottish horticultural sector. New plant varieties and associated growing technologies have
extended growing seasons in the soft fruit sector and reduced disease problems in the potato
sector. The latter issue is especially important in the seed potato sector where disease free
status is central to its competitive advantage over other European producers (such as the
Dutch).

There was no suggestion that research and development was inadequate or poorly targeted.
Conversely, the concern was how to sustain existing capacity in the face of declining industry
size. The concern was that if the sector should fall below a critical mass its governmental
support will appear unjustifiable and vulnerable to challenge.

The issue of critical mass was raised by the seed potato sector in particular. One industry
representative explained that the historic dominance of seed potato production in Scotland has
been shifting towards ware. Prices for ware have gone down which in turn has adversely
affected the economic viability of seed production. This had led to a decline in seed
production, in addition to producers combining ware with seed production (which has risks in
terms of heightened disease levels). He explained, “This presents a problem for virus control
– as ware potatoes are a reservoir for diseases. Where producers combine seed and ware
production more potential problem”. The use of cheaper imported seed potato was also
pinpointed as a concern. He elaborated “the Scottish Executive spends vast resources to
protect the seed potato sector as it is important to the economy. But if it shrinks to a point then
it may have to rethink its commitment – how can it justify such support?”

Industry data reports an overall decline in ware growers in the UK from 8000 to 3000 in past
3-4 years (Aberdeen Press and Journal 2006)20. The recent signing of an export protocol to
China is important to compensate for a fall in ware potato production in England which has
dampened domestic demand for seed potatoes. The overall future of the sector was pinned on
exports, and in that context the need for flexibility for the Scottish seed sector to market and
promote on its own account was deemed crucial (Buglass 2004, 26). A Scottish Executive
official interviewed agreed that the Scottish seed potato industry needs to maintain and
develop export markets. However they suggested that while China is significant target market,
it is perhaps not the only (or most) lucrative target.

As mentioned above, one industry respondent reported that there is almost no processing of
potato in Scotland. Apart from a small number of packers servicing supermarkets in Scotland,
most is shipped for processing in England. There was a concern that this trend may continue,

20
See data produced by the British Potato Council at
www.potato.org.uk/department/market_information/annual_trends/index.html?menu_pos=market_information

98
leaving Scottish producers with limited marketing options and vulnerable to escalating
transport costs.

Additional Economic Issues

The cost of registering pesticides under the Periodical Review Process was mentioned as a
concern. It was explained that given the expense for companies to renew permission, if there
is not a big market for it they may not bother (this affects small sectors). A Scottish producer
group remarked ‘The Periodical Review Process affects “minor use” sectors in such a manner.
But this is unnecessary as many chemicals have been used for a long time and the risks would
be well established by now’. The proposal was that such regulations be relaxed to ensure
ongoing availability of commodities. In addition, a potato industry body indicated that the
energy costs associated with storage of potatoes (both ware and seed) was significant and
rising.

5.2.3. Social Issues

The work from England suggests that the use of seasonal migrant labour has had significant
social impacts, particularly related to issues of temporary housing and stretching local
services. In Scotland, there is no immediate evidence that these issues are of significant
concern. The difficulty and cost of obtaining seasonal labour was raised uniformly by the
industry bodies interviewed (see above). However national media analysis, and interviewees,
failed to raise these additional social dimensions as problematic. A spokesperson for the peak
group for Scottish Local Authorities did not immediately indicate these as problems generally
familiar to their members.

However, interviews with staff of a local authority in Central Eastern Scotland, where
horticulture is a significant part of the local economy, revealed that such issues were
emerging and likely to develop in a similar manner to the English experience. Headlines in
local papers such as ‘Worker hits out at jobs for migrants’ (Dundee Courier), suggest that the
type of resentment expressed in some English communities is possible in Scotland.

One local authority representative interviewed explained there was not the social tension as
publicised in England, but saw that this may yet emerge in Scotland. She cited the
competition among migrants and locals for entry-level jobs – such as those in agricultural
sector – as a potential flash point. She explained that the Council were attempting to redirect
migrants to the most suitable jobs, and to try training workers in order to reduce competition
for unskilled posts. She also noted an increasingly mixed group of skilled and unskilled
migrants. The approach in this local authority was to try and ensure that those arriving with
skills were quickly moved into appropriate posts that took advantage of extant skills, rather
than having skilled migrants first spending time in unskilled jobs.

Interestingly, a local authority respondent had discerned somewhat of a shift away from short
term visitors to a more all-year-round workforce. One explanation may be that the increased
volume of on-farm packing and sorting is lending itself towards a higher quality, a better
trained and year-round workforce. The respondent explained that this shift to a more settled
migrant population also had an impact on the local needs for such communities. This was said
to be particularly evident in schools and social service provision. The Council’s budget for
English language training was deemed insufficient. As repeated elsewhere, the A8 workers
who enter under the WRS are able to move onto other employment after 12 months and have

99
a right to remain, which makes their impact far more significant than those temporary
seasonal workers who entered as part of SAWS. Further, they are likely to relocate with their
own or extended family.

The local authority indicated that low cost accommodation was also an issue. Where
accommodation is not provided by the farm operators they must source it from the private
sector. However problems have emerged whereby rent or council tax is not paid; many
problems were said to arise from poor communication skills and a lack of information in
relevant languages.

In the Central Eastern Scotland area some voluntary sector groups have been proactive in
trying to educate migrant workers as to their rights. As described above, the GLA has been
active in this area, advising workers of their rights as workers. The Community Advice
Services Centre in Dundee is organizing a bus to go and visit farms; ‘We want to get to them
at the beginning and avail them of their rights rather than them later coming to me and saying,
‘we didn’t know we had to pay our council tax,’ or ‘we didn’t know this about safety,’ ‘my
employer hasn’t given me a contract, is that okay?’ and ‘I’m working a 70-hour week, is that
normal?’ (Dundee Courier, 2007). Other initiatives are being driven by Scottish Enterprise
Fife.

The ‘Equal in Fife’ project is delivered by Fife Ethnic Minority Employment and Training
(EMET) Network, and is supported financially by Scottish Enterprise Fife and Empower
Scotland European Social Fund Equal Partnership. According to its web site; ‘The Equal in
Fife project aims to improve access to employment, training and education for ethnic minority
communities in Fife (July 2005- June 2007) and address race inequalities in the labour
market’ (www.fifedirect.org.uk/eq ualfife, Accessed 22/6/07). Its activities include education
for both employees and employers.

However there was a desire to see industry do more. The Local Authority respondent stated
“It is also the responsibility of employers to take an interest. There is a need to foster greater
collaboration with employers, especially in the area of language skills”. There was agreement
that some employers are already taking positive steps. Farming industry groups explained that
some employers have developed programs of skills development in their workforce.

While the situation in Scotland has not been so well publicised or attracted widespread media
attention, the social impact of migrant workforces in horticulture is an issue gathering
momentum. It would be inaccurate to suggest that there is a crisis in areas where a
concentration of such migrant labour is evident. It is also important not to exaggerate the
negative impact of such migration. Most respondents emphasised that such migrants are
central to the economic success of the sector, and local authority staff suggested that
education could resolve many of the associated social issues. The outstanding issue is one of
supplying appropriate housing and social services for large scale and rapid shifts in the
complexion of local populations.

5.2.4. Environmental/Ecological Issues

Horticulture is quite an intensive form of land use and as one may expect has a variety of
environmental impacts from an ecological point of view. As will become evident, the vast
majority of these impacts are well identified and already subject to regulation of one form or
another. In some areas this regulatory activity is just starting to produce a better

100
understanding of the precise contribution of horticulture – as opposed to other patterns of land
use (e.g. heavy industry, fishing or power generation) – to ecological impact. These existing
measures do not, however, seek to target horticulture (or even agriculture) specifically. Yet, as
regulatory processes develop over time, and if evidence emerges that horticulture is a/the key
contributor to ecological impact, this may be the end result.

Water

Horticultural industries, including potato production, are users of water. However in Scotland,
interviews with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) indicated that while
irrigation volumes are relatively low, many potato and horticultural growers require irrigation
in an average season. Most discussion of water centred on implementation of the EU Water
Framework Directive. Implementation of the Directive has necessitated water abstraction
management and charging. With that has come a closer examination of water usage patterns
and environmental impacts thereof.

The issue of water charging has been hugely controversial in Scotland, particularly among
horticultural and potato producers who are the heavier water users. The initial controversy
centred upon the level of charges, however the foreshadowed levels have been substantially
reduced (Watson 2005, 15). Yet, the media reportage continues to lead with stories of the
‘astronomical costs’ facing producers ‘which could lead to production becoming
uneconomical’ (Kinnaird 2006, 38).

A SEPA representatives interviewed explained “Ninety five per cent of farmers use only a
little bit of abstracted water per day if any at all and so only a small proportion of farmers are
caught by the regulations …. Irrigation is not widespread, but is important in a small but
important group of farmers”. They estimated that of those farms affected, most will be
involved in horticulture or potato production. They explained “They are mostly potato
growers, and some soft fruit mostly in Fife and NE Scotland where soil types are good and
climate is conducive to growing such crops”. The abstraction management and charging
process is in its early stage, and more detailed audits of specific locations – they suggested
Fife and Arbroath (both areas of horticultural and potato production) – were about to be
commenced. These audits will generate much more detailed data on water abstraction for
horticultural enterprises in Scotland.

Industry representatives raised concerns that if regulations tightened up on abstraction levels

then in drier years there may be markedly lower production levels. The core concern was that
in future the ‘environmental’ share may increase, and that at key times where abstraction is
required by horticulture it may not be available21. Variation is clearly considerable between
regions; where drought orders are in operation then concerns are no doubt more acute.

Pesticide and Fertiliser Use – Diffuse Pollution

Another water related issue is water quality. The identification of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
(NVZ) as part of the EU Nitrates Directive has precipitated a more acute focus on the impact
of agricultural activities (including horticulture) on water quality. As in England, there has as
yet not been any attempt to single out horticulture as a sector in relation to diffuse pollution.
But again, this may change as better quality data becomes available.

21
A related concern is that within the EU the Water Framework Directive is being applied to a varied extent:
creating an uneven playing field.

101
One industry representatives acknowledged that “Pesticide use is particularly high in seed
potato production. This is because as a tuber they grow year on year and suffer diseases year
on year. Cereals for instance grow above ground annually. Potatoes are ‘vegetatively
propagated’. Thus more pesticide needed”. However they explained that “isolation and crop
rotation [are also used] to prevent disease”.

A public consultation had recently been launched on ‘Diffuse Pollution from Rural Land Use’
which ‘focuses on the main activities which pose a risk to the water environment from rural
land use’22. The proposals are for national General Binding Rules which provide a risk
proportionate bureaucracy free form of regulation based on accepted standards of good
practice. Subsequently, this may be followed by a second phase with rules targeted at specific
problem catchments.

Environmental groups were keen to emphasise the deleterious impact of diffuse pollution on
biodiversity, soil quality and water quality. These were concerns about agricultural land use
more generally, although they did indicate a belief that horticultural enterprises may be more
intensive users of pesticides and fertilisers.

Climate change

Several respondents mentioned the impact that climate change may have on the horticultural
sector. For some, the concern was that it may bring added disease problems to some crops.
For others, it presented an opportunity for better growing conditions, including longer
growing seasons. For example, a Scottish Crop Research Institute publishes report suggests
increased production of horticulture as warming takes effect. But another report suggests that
seed-potato industry will suffer from warmer winters and thus to increased disease risk.

Industry Standards and Public/Private Regimes of Governance

Environmental regulation of horticultural industries is embedded for the most part in

implementation of EU directives (e.g. Water Framework, Nitrates, Bathing Water) which do
not target industry sectors directly. Beyond these activities, interviewees from Scottish
Executive departments and agencies indicated a rather hands off approach to industry
involvement.

One UK levy body explained that it seeks to play an active role in promoting environmental
best practice with its producer stakeholders. In this context legislative initiatives, such as the
Water Directive, served as windows of opportunity within which to promote environmentally
responsible farm management techniques. For instance, the issue of energy consumption may
be addressed through the topic of soil compaction by highlighting the energy costs of
excessive tractor use. Reports such as that commissioned by the British Potato Council
engage in exploring impacts of proposed environmental legislation on producers (see
Howsam and Knox 2007). Coordination among levy bodies to address cross-sectoral issues
such as environmental impact is evident under the umbrella of the Applied Research Forum23.

22
See documents at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/10/24155114/0
23
www.appliedresearchforum.org.uk/content.output/0/0/Home/Home/Home.mspx

102
Many industry and market-orientated bodies were proactive in integrating environmental
concerns (broadly conceived) into production practice. This was facilitated by a plethora of
overlapping codes, schemes and programs.

The British Summer Fruits24 marketing body introduced some limits on use of poly-tunnels
into its code of practice. This code of practice is going to be linked to the Assured Produce
Scheme

Various supermarkets have schemes for the potato production sector. One interview from the
BPTA indicated that TESCO included a broad range of factors in its Nature’s Choice code of
practice25 – including working conditions for staff.

Assured Produce Scheme

These types of schemes are useful mechanisms for engaging industry in measures to address
environmental impacts. However, they are not always transparent, and many are rightly
cautious about endorsing ‘self-regulatory’ schemes in this area.

5.2.5. Awareness of ‘Environmental Footprint’

In the Scottish case, one of the biggest single difficulties in the project has been in
communicating the general thrust of the work. Many stakeholders are compartmentalised in
their views, perhaps having a few salient points on one aspect of economic impact but having
little or nothing to say on other elements. This has made it quite difficult to gauge a holistic
view of impact and to explore the undoubted interrelationships between social, economic and
ecological dimensions.

The process of recruiting interviewees and explaining the task of the research has offered an
insight into the extent to which the term ‘environmental footprint’ has currency. On the
whole, the majority of stakeholders assumed it pertained to issues we have explored here
under the label of ecological impacts. It has taken quite a bit of persuasion to convince
stakeholders to stray into, for example, social impacts. The overwhelming impression from
interviews in Scotland was that the concept of an environmental footprint had not yet become
an issue of concern for stakeholders. There was a degree of familiarity with what was implied
by such a concept, but it was apparent that few had really ever thought through its
implications for the horticulture or potato sectors.

The one notable exception was a UK trade association. Their representative noted that one up-
chain food retailer had asked a member for the carbon footprint of their production. He
explained that the company was not sure how to respond, and that it anticipated this would be
the first query of many. More generally, this demonstrates the manner in which perceptions of
consumer demand and the desire to protect corporate image can drive the food supply chain to
take environmental issues more seriously.

24
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/images/polytunnels_new_final.pdf
25
www.tescofarming.com/tnc.asp

103
 5.2.6. Conclusion

The horticulture sector (incl. potatoes) in Scotland is diverse, and has survived largely
unassisted by government. Government funded R&D is certainly highly valued by industry,
and is something the industry is keen to retain. The sector faces various challenges, most
arising from downward price pressure and competition from imports. The report finds impacts
in all three categories, economic, social and environmental.

A clear outcome from this work is that there are several competing agendas in agricultural and
food policy more generally that have a bearing on how one conceives and formulates an
environmental footprint.

Industry, and some environmental groups, can clearly identify the benefits of locally produced
produce in terms of lowered food miles, enhanced human health and regional economic
development. These need to be appreciated in any formulation of an environmental footprint.
However, there are undoubtedly deleterious impacts, of an ecological and social nature, that
such activity brings. These are generally acknowledged and cannot be ignored.

One important insight from this work is that not many industry bodies – or environmental
bodies for that matter – have well articulated or developed proposals for how to manage the
‘environmental’ impact of the sector in a holistic manner. Most respondents could provide
generalised answers on specific aspects of impact, but not in any integrated fashion.
Moreover, none seemed to have undertaken any internal debate around how to articulate their
overall environmental footprint – or any other conception of overall environmental impact. In
fact, the nearest scheme for articulating and seeking to regulate impact, broadly conceived,
came from supermarket quality schemes. And the only group to have been directly familiar
with the environmental footprint concept itself was a trade association which was responding
to a query from a fast food chain (itself wanting to communicate green credentials to its
customers). This does seem to suggest that proximity to the consumer seems to drive the need
to communicate environmental impact. Moreover, it suggests that in order to take best
advantage of shifting consumer sentiment concerning the environment, the horticultural
industry needs to spend more time debating these questions.

One environmental NGO explained that they are prioritising the issue of the Scottish diet.
‘We are pushing more fruit and veg consumption in Scotland. It has a history of poor diet and
we want more consumed north of the border – but it must be locally produced and locally
consumed. We are campaigning for more horticulture in Scotland’. But they also recognised
that a campaign for local horticulture could have ecological impacts and would be at cross
purposes with other environmental NGOs in Scotland who often argue against intensive
agriculture. He said “We have concerns over the impact that intensive land use and soil
working has on soil structure and biodiversity. This may be an issue if we expand
horticulture”.

This one contradiction neatly captures the more general problem of how to weigh up
important agendas. It seems clear that any conception of an environmental footprint involves
weighing up diverse imperatives: diet, ecological integrity, local production systems,
economic development and rural aesthetics are perhaps some of the key ones. This study
provides some insights into the range of agendas that are evident, and suggests such a process
is likely to be complex and highly politicised.

104
List of interviewees

Producer/trade associations 5 (incl. 4 phone)

Local Authorities 3 (incl. 2 phone, 1 email)
National environmental organisations 3 (incl. 2 phone)
Government Departments/Agencies 2 (incl. 1 phone)
Researchers 1 (email)
Related non-farm businesses 1 (phone)
Total respondents 15

105
 5.3. Horticulture and polytunnels: A case study

The use of polytunnels in soft fruit production is one of the most important issues that face the
UK horticulture industry at the present time. Moreover, as one respondent put it “Polytunnels
are the visible symptom of a wider range of issues affecting the countryside”. The issue offers
a good illustration of the tensions that can arise between economic viability, social impacts
and environmental sustainability. This case study is divided into three main sections: a
consideration of the case for the use of polytunnels; a consideration of the case against
polytunnels, particularly in sensitive landscapes; and an examination of how far the tensions
that arise might be reconciled through modifications in tunnels, guidance given through codes
of practice and the planning system.

The case study draws on interview material and documentation. We are grateful to those who
agreed to be interviewed, and for the responses some of them made to a draft of this report but
the judgements made are ours alone. It should be emphasised that this report is about the
perceptions of stakeholders rather than making judgements about whether or not they are well
founded. These perceptions stem in many cases from different value systems and priorities
which cannot be readily reconciled. Thus, for example, for some amenity activists
strawberries are a ‘luxury’ product whereas growers would portray them as a useful
contribution to a balanced diet.

5.3.1. The case in favour of the use of polytunnels

The principal arguments in favour of the use of polytunnels in soft fruit production are:
• Economic viability of the industry
• Extending consumer choice and helping to meet health policy objectives
• Reducing food miles
• Reducing pesticide use

The development of poly tunnel use

Haygrove Tunnels are growers based in Herefordshire who started to experiment with the use
of polytunnels in the mid 1990s. They are now the leading providers of tunnels to the
horticulture industry with a substantial export business with patents on five products and trade
with 28 countries. (Interview information) The first tunnels were imported from the United
States and had a number of deficiencies. The tunnels were too small to allow the use of field
machinery and did not stand up well to the windier conditions in Northern Europe26.

In 1996 Haygrove Tunnels started selling multi-bay polytunnels to growers in the UK and
overseas ‘in order to meet customers demand for reliability and quality of supply’27. The
sophistication of the tunnels has increased considerably over time. For example, on a site visit
a tunnel was seen with a design that allows a tunnel’s supports to be raised slowly, creating an
initial pocket of warm air.

Tunnels are most commonly used for growing strawberries and raspberries, but the proportion
accounted for by these two groups is declining. Two years ago these two crops accounted for
an estimated 95% of output, but more recently there has been an ‘explosion’ from other crops
26
www.haygrove.co.uk/introPage.asp?article=96, accessed 4 January 2007
27
www.haygrove.co.uk/mainPage.asp?article=33, accessed 4 January 2007

106
(Interview information). Other crops grown under polytunnels have included blueberries,
blackberries, redcurrants, plums, herbs, salad crops, asparagus, nursery crops and cut flowers.
They can be used as part of the process of growing cherries, offering frost protection, blossom
protection and protection from rain which can split them. Producers in the nursery sector see
considerable benefits in polythene, given that glass can be too expensive in terms of capital
costs. However, glass is considered to be best for cut flowers and pot plants, whereas “for
outdoor plants you want a system that will let light through but keep rain out”. (Interview
information)

Economic viability

Economic viability represents the strongest argument in favour of the use of polytunnels.
Before the arrival of polytunnels, strawberry and raspberry production “was a very
unsophisticated industry, Pick Your Own, direct marketing, it’s become a success story”
(Interview information). Fruits were often used in jam making because the quality was too
poor for other uses. The British Soft Fruits Council states, ‘There is currently no viable
alternative to using polytunnels if we are to continue to have a UK soft fruit industry.28’

Of course, high quality fruit was produced before the advent of polytunnels, but what the poly
tunnel offers is a combination of reliability and quality of supply on the scale required to
supply the major supermarkets. 2007 offers an example of a season where, without
polytunnels, there would have been little British soft fruit as a result of the impact of weather
on yield and quality. One interview respondent who was not employed in the industry
commented, “It has been great in terms of viability. The soft fruit industry has performed
strongly because of polytunnels …. The country has to make a decision. Does it want British
soft fruit?”.

The economic benefits are achieved principally through higher yields (both overall yields and
saleable yields), better quality and an extended growing season. ‘Protected soft fruit on
average produces 30-35% improved class 1 yield versus outdoor non-protected production’29.

The substantial diffusing effect of the polythene means that it scatters the light so that it gets
deeper into the plant canopy resulting in larger fruits. For crops grown outdoors summer rain
can prevent harvesting and spoil the quality of the fruit, leading to sporadic growth and
‘noses’ on the strawberries. As far as quality is concerned ’Prior to the production of
polytunnels, only 50% of a yield was Class 1 fruit. Protecting the fruit under tunnels has
increased this to 90%. For a grower, this means a difference between having a prosperous
business and going out of business, since labour costs are too great to afford picking off large
percentages of low grade or unsaleable fruit’30.

The growing season has also been substantially extended beyond the traditional association
with the Wimbledon fortnight, ‘Ten years ago British strawberries were only available for the
short 6-week season in June and July. The development of tunnel systems has enabled British
soft fruit to be successfully grown from May to mid/late autumn. This has dramatically

28
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/press/polytunnels.htm, accessed 4 January 2007
29
www.britishsummerfuits.co.uk/press/polytunnels.htm, accessed 4 January 2007
30
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/press/polytunnels.htm, accessed 4 January 2007

107
reduced the amount of soft fruit imported into the UK. British strawberries are consequently a
very rare and often quoted success story in a depressed UK agriculture’31.

A note of caution is necessary about claims about import reduction, as Defra figures for
strawberries show that imports, although prone to fluctuations year on year, increased after
2001 to reach the highest figure since 1994 in 2004 (provisional figures) at 39,900 tonnes. Of
course, these figures have to be placed in the context of growing consumption stimulated by
marketing and there are clear advantages in terms of growing in England. “Half of the year we
have a perfect growing environment because most crops like a temperature of 15 to 25 °C.
Southern Spain has problems with heat and quality issues with shelf life” (Interview
information). Strawberries and raspberries are woodland species that significantly slowdown
in photosynthesis when temperatures rise above 25 degrees centigrade. Polythene absorbs the
light in the infrared spectrum (which is responsible for heat) and thus reduces the temperature
inside the tunnel.

There is no doubt that the leading supermarkets are major drivers in this process, consistent
with their impact across the food chain generally. ‘This is about continuity of supply during
difficult weather. It is about confidence and reliability of supply for retailers operating 7 days
a week with extended opening hours … The supermarkets have increased their supply of
berries from 69% to nearly 90% in the last 10 years’32.

This was confirmed by an interview respondent, “Polytunnels arrived at a perfect time for
strawberries and raspberries, move of supermarkets to category management, can’t have
programmed production if rain comes in middle. [Without polytunnels] supermarkets
purchase from Spain or Dutch glasshouses”.

There are also multiplier effects on local rural economies which can be afflicted by a lack of
viable enterprises or problems of under employment. A Herefordshire grower, states, “In
2003 our medium sized business has invested over £1m in purchases of items and services
such as irrigation, packaging, vehicles, crop feeds etc. Most of this has been spent with local
businesses. Even our tunnels are manufactured in Herefordshire”33.

The social impact of migrant labour in growing areas is controversial, as will be discussed
later, but growers insist that there are economic benefits from their presence. Because the soft
fruit industry is the most labour intensive in agriculture and employs around 5000 full-time
staff and 50,000 seasonal staff, it is argued that it brings ‘value to the economy of many rural
areas’34. A grower claimed “We estimate that our seasonal labour force of mainly Eastern
European University students will have invested 50% of their income into the retail and
tourism industries in Herefordshire. That is … £250,000”35.

These arguments tend to be dismissed by environmentalists who argue that ‘Rubbish talked
about input into local economy. Get shipped up to Tesco twice a week, they are trying to save
as much money as possible’. Nevertheless ‘Protected production under tunnels enables both
supply and work to be reliable and hence farm staff to be regularly employed’36.

31
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/press/polytunnels.htm, accessed 4 January 2007
32
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/customer.htm, accessed 24 January 2007
33
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/grower.htm, accessed 24 January 2007
34
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/case.htm, accessed 24 January 2007
35
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/grower.htm, accessed 24 January 2007
36
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/case.htm, accessed 24 January 2007

108
Polytunnels would appear to have been a major contributor to increased efficiency in the
industry, an outcome that has been achieved without sector specific subsidies for growing
fruit. In terms of soft fruit production, ‘[The] total planted area decreased from almost 11,000
hectares to 8,500 hectares between 1994 and 2004, with one of the most significant decreases
in the planted area covered by strawberries. However, over the same period there was also an
increase in the volume of production, for strawberries as much as 25% … This tends to
suggest an increase in efficiency – of being able to produce more fruit from less land’
(Entec, 2006: 6).

Extending consumer choice and meeting health policy objectives

As a grower commented, “We are really enthusiastic about what we are doing here. We are
local producers of fruit with a low chemical content, producing it cheaply to help meet the
five a day target”. Polytunnels deliver ‘lower costs to the consumer. The selling price of soft
fruit in UK supermarkets has remained static for the last 10 years whilst many costs for
growers such as hourly pay rates have risen dramatically’37.

Consumers spent £350m on strawberries in 2006 with strawberries moving beyond their
traditional image of summer indulgence. For example, a growing number of consumers are
eating strawberries for their breakfast. A report in The Grocer suggests that as many
strawberries are eaten for health reasons as for enjoyment 38. The biggest strawberry eaters are
the over-45s and children under the age of five. Children eat them because of their sweet
taste, while older people like them because they are low in fat, high in fibre and high in
vitamin C.

Reducing food miles

Food grown in the UK has a shorter distance to travel than food produced elsewhere and does
not make use of air freight. The carbon footprint should in principle be lower, particularly
given that soft fruits are grown without the use of heating. In order to develop this point it
would be useful to have more information, which is not currently available, on how far soft
fruits do travel between the grower and the final consumer. This would enable more precise
estimates to be made about the gains from displacing imported produce and would represent a
useful contribution to the debate39.

Reducing pesticide use

Strawberries and raspberries have high water content, as much as 98 per cent, and hence are
particularly susceptible to wet weather type diseases. In a sealed unit you get a build up of
relatively humidity and condensation drip whereas substantial venting in a poly tunnel unit
allows plenty of natural air movement. A grower commented, “We can pretty much eliminate
wet weather diseases, they were the killer”.

Botrytis in particular was a problem and might require spraying with chemical pesticides
weekly or even every three to four days on an outdoor crop. A grower estimates that his

37
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/press/polytunnels.htm
38
www.news.scotsman.com/index, accessed 29 May 2007
39
Work within RELU projects is currently addressing this issue. See www.relu.ac.uk/research/projects/Edwards-
Jones.htm

109
operation uses 50 per cent less Botrytis fungicides compared to when they were in open field
production 40. Tunnels also create an ideal environment for beneficial insects to work.

Dry weather diseases are more challenging. Powdery mildew is a fungal disease that creates
spores. Tunnels create a natural wind tunnel, but plastic baffles can be dropped to slow down
the spread of the disease. Organic growers are permitted to use sulphur dusting to control the
disease. Another big problem is red spider mite and some insect diseases, but environmentally
friendly biological controls are available through the release of predators and the creation of
insect banks.

Diseases and pests are adapted to different environmental conditions. Altering the conditions
by use of a tunnel will obviously affect the likelihood and severity of diseases and pest
attacks. There are no perfect set of conditions in which crops grow well and no pests and
diseases attack the crop. With the lack of pesticides available, it is better from a grower’s
point of view to have conditions which favour controllable problems. Polytunnels are better
for Integrated Pest Management due to a partially controlled environment.

Growers would claim that as well sustaining a viable industry that strengthens rural
communities and increases employment, polytunnels are also a sustainable system of
production. “In terms of a system, a tunnel with a gutter, recycling polythene, using 30 to 50
per cent pesticides, growing crop closer to the market, is actually quite a sustainable system”
(Interview information). In contrast, an environmentalist argued that polytunnels are “a very
intensive form of horticulture which is not sustainable in the environmental sense”. On the
other hand, a campaigner on food chain issues argued that the “Scope for them being a very
clean and useful technology is huge”.

5.3.2. The case against the use of polytunnels

Before considering the general case against their wider use, it should be noted that some of
the problems identified can be dealt with by good management and husbandry, e.g.,
preventing polythene flapping and hanging in trees or even enveloping houses or by effective
communication with neighbours. There was some suggestion in interviews that actions by one
or two growers had affected the image of the industry as a whole, ‘Aware that grower
community anxious of precedent set through an extreme case where one grower had not been
sensitive to requirements of neighbours. A couple of high profile cases in North Herefordshire
and Surrey and both haven’t played out that role in their community. [Name deleted] did so
belatedly. [Name deleted] never did. There is a big anxiety if any national precedent is set on
high profile cases where an individual is not as sensitive’ (Interview information).

Concern was expressed from the perspective of the nursery industry, which has used
polytunnels for years, about the possible impacts of adverse perceptions of the use of
polytunnels by the soft fruit industry. The nursery sector may well use polytunnels more than
soft fruit, but production is less geographically concentrated. Nurseries are more likely to
have established windbreaks and one is less likely to see polytunnels from an adjacent road.
The ‘concern is that soft fruit growers, [by providing a] sudden shock on the landscape, [will
lead to] controls being introduced that have a knock on effect on nurseries.’ (Interview
information).

40
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/grower.htm, accessed 24 January 2007

110
The main arguments against polytunnels are:
• Their visual impact, particularly in sensitive landscape areas and links with a
perceived industrialisation of the countryside
• The local social impact of migrant labour employed in the sector
• Negative impacts on tourism
• Issues resulting from water abstraction and run off, including flooding
• Soil sterilisation
• The environmental impacts of polythene
• Doubts expressed about the benefits for consumers

Visual impact and the industrialisation of the countryside

At the root of some of the conflicts that have arisen are very different constructions of ‘the
countryside’ and its functions. One grower, Angus Davison, refers to the loss of ‘a bit of
visual amenity’41 which is not how the problem is perceived by environmentalists. An
interview respondent commented, “My overall view is that as growers we feel generally that
the majority of issues are with a handful of individuals with anxieties over property values
and their own individual situation. There is a natural evolution of the countryside, once hop
structures, [you need] something to generate livelihoods”.

Even one of the environmental activists interviewed admitted that some activists were ‘totally
Nimby’. They were preoccupied with aesthetic issues and there was a need for a wider
analytical view. It should be remembered that ‘the planning system does not exist to protect
the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests
may coincide with public interest in some cases.’ (Environmental Scrutiny Committee, 2004:
16).

Nevertheless, a respondent who was not an employee of the interview or an environmental

activist commented that there was “a kind of industrialisation that some counties feel has been
done to them”. Local impacts can be severe if long hours of working using machinery are in
place which, combined with the noise of polytunnels in the wind and rain, can produce sleep
deprivation. One Herefordshire respondent talked in more general terms of a “value clash
between American and British ways of life”. An employee of a national environmental
organisation saw the issue about polytunnels as emblematic of a broader policy debate, “Poly
tunnel issue is delivering a debate about what constitutes a rural landscape in same ways as
intrusive wind farm, large-scale a forestation, power lines made profound differences to
landscape. It is these major landscapes that need to be recognised for what they are which are
different from small-scale incremental changes in farming practice”.

He continued, “Pro poly tunnel contention is that total area is tiny in terms of land area they
use, rather like saying skyscrapers are a small part of the surface area of London, if in the
wrong place can obliterate city views. Chichester/Littlehampton area, a lot of glasshouses,
poly tunnel expansion there would change very little, impact is quite modest. Situated in Wye
Valley AONB you get this completely different phenomenon, tunnels on a 30 degree slope.
Highly dependent on where you put these things. Character of land, in landscape which merits
national designation, poly tunnel formula undermines that designation”.

Thus, one proposed site was ‘overlooked by the higher land on the western side of the river
[Wye] … these poly tunnel sites are far more visible in the wider landscape, than polytunnels
41
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/grower.htm, accessed 24 January 2007

111
that are sited on much flatter areas in other parts of the county’ (Southern Area Planning Sub-
Committee, 2006: 31). More generally, ‘the undulating nature of the Herefordshire
countryside made it difficult to hide poly tunnel sites if viewed from any elevated position’
(Environment Scrutiny Committee, 2004: 21).

Polytunnels can also have adverse micro level effects in a particular location, e.g., on an
isolated mediaeval church built in a commanding position in a setting that has survived
largely intact. ‘The presence, even intermittently, of large expanses of polytunnels within
100m of the churchyard boundary will have a detrimental impact on the setting of the church’
(Southern Area Sub-Committee, 2006: 30). Of course, ‘the need to respect nationally
important landscapes has to be balanced with the market/financial realities facing farmers
who also have important roles in conserving and enhancing the countryside’ (Entec, 2006:
24).

If they are on an elevated slope, as is often the case in Herefordshire, polytunnels can be seen
from a long distance away. Complete acceptable concealment is made more unlikely when
footpath views are taken into account. When ‘polytunnels are erected in adjacent fields …
then when viewed from a distance, the perception of the viewer is of a large mass of plastic
coalescing across the group of fields’ (Southern Area Planning Sub- Committee, 2006: 32).

One site visited in Herefordshire was located in a hollow and would not generally have been
visible, but many sites in that county and elsewhere are on a scale and in locations that are
visually intrusive. In sunny weather in summer, this is compounded by the problem of
reflected glare. In Surrey, residents were particularly concerned about the proximity of the
polytunnels to their homes, “Most residents live closer to farmer than Herefordshire people
do, impact was profound, people woke up and looking over seventy acres of polytunnels”.
(Interview information) However, the case put forward by Waverley Borough Council was
based on public policy issues and the impact on the protected landscape and the residential
amenity argument was a subsidiary aspect.

Environmental campaigners do not, in general, want to abolish the use of polytunnels. The
national environmental campaigner quoted before stated, “If on a relatively flat surface, not in
a designated landscape, we recognise that they have a role in modern farming”. An activist in
Surrey commented, “we do not have a beef with polytunnels per se … The object here was
not to get wholesale removal but to get a level of control”. The key issues are seen by
environmentalists in terms of landscape impact are seen as scale and location. The policy
challenge is ‘that the need to respect nationally important landscapes has to be balanced with
the market/financial realities facing farmers who have important roles in conserving and
enhancing the countryside’ (Entec, 2006: 24).

The local social impact of migrant labour

This covers not just an expansion in the local population, estimated to be 30 per cent in the
Leominster area of Herefordshire by one respondent, but also effects such as the visual impact
of temporary housing and the effect of additional heavy transport carrying produce, supplies
and workers on narrow lanes. One respondent referred to a site in Herefordshire that is a
“hamlet on a hill with a single track road, buses coming up and down all the time, very
difficult to get out”.

The social impact of workers on relatively traditional societies with ageing population is a
delicate subject and can lead to reports which are based on rumour, exaggeration or the

112
construction of myths. One environmentalist said that she had no time for arguments about
social impacts, 250 workers caused no trouble. A grower in Herefordshire pointed out there
was a long history of itinerant labour in the industry because it was an intensive user of
labour, “We have a lot less problems now than in the early 1990s when it was travelling
labour in tents or caravans. SAWS scheme, respectable, well brought up, we have 650, one or
two issues a year, if we had 650 Anglo Saxon guys we would have a lot more issues”.

Activists admitted that stories of people being pushed off pavements, of uninsured or
unlicensed vehicles or people ‘no longer having their own supermarket’ were exaggerated,
although they did reflect some of the perceptions that could arise from a sudden influx of
migrant labour. Activists often couched their concerns in terms of exploitation of the workers
such as ‘modern slave labour’ or ‘Russian overseers and Polish workers, English farmer does
not know enough about what is going on his farm’. Even with the regulatory frameworks
provided by SAWS and the Gangmasters Authority, problems no doubt do arise from time to
time, but this has to be balanced against the examples of best practice by growers such as
providing English lessons or visits to tourist attractions.

Once again the problem is in part one of perception. Observers may find themselves torn
between sharply conflicting images in terms of constructing their understanding of what
happens in polytunnels. As an experienced observer of the food chain commented, “[We] get
different versions of how we imagine it is to work in a poly tunnel. It can be clean like a
scientific environment with people in white coats where there is a high standard in terms of
working conditions, sheltered from elements. Or it could be dystopian, people cut off from
wider society where people can get away from anything”.

The visual impact of housing for workers can be an issue and it can also produce noise and
light in a previously tranquil location. This can amount to what one respondent described as
the “sudden appearance of a new town in remote, open countryside”. Growers understandably
prefer to have a centralised caravan park and transport workers to where they are required on
their farms, of which there are often more than one. It was alleged that one grower had
imported rotting mobile homes from seaside locations in Wales. However, a “modern site is
not so visually intrusive”, according to one environmental activist. Accommodation for
seasonal workers was visited in one location and consisted of dark green wooden painted
buildings screened by trees. Good practice of this kind needs to be encouraged.

Negative impacts on tourism

Competing claims on this issue are made by both sides and it is difficult to resolve them in the
absence of reliable data or a rigorous methodological consideration of that data.
Herefordshire is not a leading tourist destination, compared with somewhere like the Lake
District, but tourism has a substantial economic and social impact.

‘[In] 2001 approx 8.4 million visitors came to Herefordshire, bringing £271.5 million income
to the County. Tourism supports an estimated 7,880 actual jobs, equating to 5,610 full time
equivalent jobs. Many Herefordshire businesses are wholly or partly dependent on tourism …
Tourism also plays an important role in sustaining facilities in rural areas – many village
pubs, garages, shops and post offices would not be viable without visitor income. A
substantial number of farms have also found it difficult to survive without diversifying into
tourism’ (Environment Scrutiny Committee, 2004: 17).

113
A national environmental campaigner argued, “Bed and breakfast requires an identity not
seriously disturbed by these polytunnels. Peace and quiet, tranquillity is sought”. In order to
assess claim of this kind, one would need first a time series of tourism visit figures for
Herefordshire with comparative data from other similar counties without polytunnels. One
would also need survey (rather than anecdotal) evidence from visitors to Herefordshire about
whether their perception of the county as a tourist destination had been significantly affected
by the presence of polytunnels. Even more important one would want to test whether
prospective visitors to Herefordshire had been deterred by the presence of polytunnels, a
sample that would be difficult to identify. Having identified a number for deterred first time
or repeat visitors, one could quantify the economic cost, but this would have to be balanced
against the employment and other benefits of poly tunnel production compared with any
viable alternatives. This would probably mean constructing worst, best and median case
scenarios. It can be seen that gathering and analysing the data in a rigorous fashion would be
time consuming and expensive, possibly prohibitively so, although environmentalists would
argue that this evidence must be sought. It is therefore not surprising that the local authority
concluded ‘The Working Group considers that insufficiently detailed statistical and
financial background has been established to draw any final conclusions regarding the balance
between the economic effect of polytunnels on the County and the effect of polytunnels or
tourism and where these two criteria clash’ (Environment Scrutiny Committee, 2004: 18).

Issues arising from water abstraction and run off including flooding

This is also an area in which good on farm management is of crucial importance in avoiding
problems. Plastic sheeting ‘forms an impermeable layer and therefore on a large scale can
pose similar problems to that posed by urban areas … Essentially, water run-off will increase,
with flooding more of a risk following prolonged and heavy rainfall’ (Entec, 2006: 18).

Sowing and managing grassland along leg rows and in areas around the tunnel block is the
most effective form of water runoff. Grass lined poly tunnel leg rows, despite collecting
significant concentrations of water in very short periods of time provide significantly less
water runoff than either row crops in open field or untilled land (although marginally higher
than pasture). The longer the tunnels can be left in place the less the erosion risk (as alleys
stay grassed) and better the drainage collection and water recycling. Table 43 reproduced
below gives some relevant data, although it should be noted that it was written by an expert
retained by a farmer and has not been subject to peer review. Its value is therefore illustrative.

Table 43. Run off rates from different types of land use
Velocity (m/s)
Grass lined poly tunnel leg row 0.125
Untilled land 0.35
Row crops in open field 0.18
Pasture 0.12
Channelled culvert 1.40
Source: Haygrove Newton Farm Environmental Impact Report, 2006

Large volume mypex (black polythene) channels or culverts are an additional critical part of
the field layout for runoff management. For example, at Haygrove Newtown Farm, 560
metres of channelled culvert was dug for managing runoff and this was a critical component
in obtaining planning consent for the farm.

114
The provision of tunnel gutters is an important part of an overall management plan, giving the
ability to manage water runoff, recycle water, create a more uniform micro climate within the
structure and eliminate rain splash/puddling in leg rows. They should reduce fruit rots and this
opens up further opportunities for reducing pesticide use. This reduction might be a result of
reducing humidity and moisture in the micro climate surrounding plants adjacent to ‘leg rows’
or that pre-harvest fungicide are made more effective. Trials to compare results for guttered
and standard tunnels were under way in 2007. However a potential constraint on their wider
use is that “Gutters are more costly for farmers, gutters would be quite a bit more expensive”
(Interview information). This can be offset if there is an on farm reservoir which can offset
the cost of drawing off mains water and hence reduce the effective cost of guttering. An
additional benefit is “not having to treat [rain] water for pH retrieval, ground water have to
check and amend pH” (Interview information).

Environmentalists claimed that there is evidence of non-compliance with agreed planning

conditions and that ‘Only enforced planning control can ensure compliance’.

The availability of water supplies, particularly in drought conditions, and the opportunity cost
of providing water for soft fruit crops, is an important consideration in many parts of England.
Strawberries are a water intensive crop. The water requirement for an average Elsanta crop is
1,656 cubic m per annum and for an average everbearer crop is 3,254 cubic m. Based on
average rainfall in the West Midlands area, the collection of tunnel water would collect an
annual surplus of 772 cubic m. However, not all growers follow best practice and an
environmental activist argued that public policy was “Not really very joined up in terms of
water extraction”. A national environmental campaigner argued, “As time goes by we will
get more careful about integrity of water management”.

Poorly managed runoff can create a number of problems, including flooding. These problems
can be particularly serious on steep slopes. These issues have concerned planners in
Herefordshire, ‘Where the polytunnels are aligned with the slope direction there will be an
increase in the peak runoff rate, which potentially may cause erosion of the land, transport
large quantities of sediment and exacerbate flooding downstream of the site’ (Southern Area
Planning Sub-Committee, 2006: 25). In particular, ‘In policy terms, we would not wish to see
polytunnels on land which falls within the 1% floodplain, as polytunnels would be likely to
effect [sic] flood flows. There may also be an increased risk of flooding elsewhere if
polytunnels are washed out during a flood event, with the potential for blockages
downstream’ (Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee, 2006: 25). The Environment Agency
has objected to two poly tunnel developments on the ground of flood risk (Entec, 2006: 18).

Against a general background of problems of excess phosphate and sediment generated by

diffuse agricultural pollution, these water management challenges are a key element in any
arrangements for managing the use of polytunnels. Unless tunnels are subjected to planning
control, the Environment Agency are not consulted on water management.

Soil sterilisation

Methyl bromide is a soil sterilant which strawberry growers have used in the past to control
both insect pests and fungal diseases in the soil before planting. Critical use exemptions in
relation to strawberries and raspberries have been phased out with no known instances of a
soft fruit grower still using methyl bromide. The environmentalist perspective is that this
intensive form of horticulture will still require sterilisation, but growers will switch to other
products.

115
There are disagreements about the impact of soil sterilisation, with the National Farmers’
Union (NFU) arguing that it does not do permanent damage and returns to its previous state
after 12 months.

‘However, active measures need to be taken to re-establish soil fertility through the
introduction of organic matter, and the regeneration of soil structure, if there is repeated
sterilisation. Soil structure is ‘inherited’ from its previous condition and won’t change
dramatically over a short period of time. However, without microbial, bacterial, algal and
invertebrate activity, the structure will degrade. Repeated sterilisation of soil and trafficking
for soft fruit production will damage its structure’ (Entec, 2006: 17).

There remains a need to develop a viable system of growing that does not rely on the use of
methyl bromide. ‘The suppliers of the alternatives claim they are as good, and the growers’
adherence to methyl bromide is probably based on inertia, resistance to change, and suspicion
of government advice, not on any empirical evidence’. However, it is admitted that
‘Alternatives to methyl bromide are probably more expensive’ (Entec, 2006: 17).

The environmental impacts of polythene

A set of ‘top tips for tunnel success’ recommends, ‘Keep the farm clean and tidy. This is
perhaps the most important issue of all. Neighbours who contend with polythene flapping and
hanging in trees and hedges will never be sympathetic to the need of tunnelled production’ 42.
There have even been instances of dwellings becoming enveloped in vagrant polythene.

The industry also emphasises, ‘If tunnels are to be sustainable we must recycle materials’ 43.
British Polythene (BPI) and Haygrove operate a national recycling scheme. The recycling is
provided free to growers who only have to pay the cost of transport to the recycling plant.
Unfortunately, this is located at Dumfries in Scotland, well away from the major areas of poly
tunnel use. Environmentalists point out that oil is used to make the plastic in the first place
and then to transport it for recycling. One problem is that in Ireland farmers have to pay an up
front levy when they purchase polythene which is then used to fund a national recycling
scheme that is free at the point of use. ‘One problem with the scheme is that they have no
national recycling plant, so Irish polythene is all coming to Dumfries, so consequence for
British grower is there is not much capacity’ (Interview information).

It was suggested from within the industry that a recycling levy should be paid by the sellers of
polythene and this idea might merit further investigation.

Doubts expressed about the benefits for consumers

It has been argued that the existence of a market demand for competitively priced soft fruit
does not demonstrate there is a need for it. The general argument here is that consumer
demand is artificially stimulated by supermarkets which enjoy an oligopolistic position in the
market. This is an argument that has a lineage back to the economist Galbraith and is also
reflected in a growing literature that is critical of the role of supermarkets in contemporary
English society. (Blythman, 2004; Simms 2007). A more sophisticated version of this

42
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/tips.htm, accessed 24 January 2007
43
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/tips.htm, accessed 24 January 2007

116
argument was put forward by a national environmental campaigner in terms of the
environmental utility of seasonality:

“Soft fruit growers think that it is a restraining influence. I think that ‘occasionalness’ has a
part to play in the economy. One can question philosophically that it’s always a good thing to
overcome seasonality and to question argument of supermarkets that demand is insatiable.
Are the claims of the soft fruit industry evidence based?”

Some of these issues about the role of the consumer in modern society raise broader
philosophical and normative questions that lie beyond the scope of this paper. (See Food
Ethics, 2007: 2, 2). This paper does not seek to provide a general critique of industrialised
agriculture. It might be pointed out, however, that the greater availability of strawberries and
raspberries contributes to government preventive health objectives.

Some interim conclusions

The cultivation of soft fruit under polytunnels brings economic, social and environmental
benefits to society and to consumers. However, there are also some costs. Even the industry
admits ‘as crucial as they are to horticulture, they do create a visual impact on the
landscape’44. The preceding discussion has highlighted significant issues that require further
attention in relation to water management and soil sterilisation.

Many of these issues are being tackled by responsible growers. Nevertheless, this presents a
collective action problem. The majority of growers may behave responsibly, but there is
always room for the ‘free rider’ who cuts corners to maximise profits and hence damages the
reputation of the industry. Self regulation can make a contribution, but it is rarely enough. The
discussion now turns to possible solutions to some of the problems that have been identified.

5.3.3. Solutions

Moderating the visual impact of the tunnels

Given that glare is one of the principal concerns about polytunnels, anything that could be
done to reduce this through the use of green or other coloured polythene could make a
substantial contribution to reducing concerns about visual impact, although it was argued
from an amenity perspective that green was more obtrusive,

‘Reading University and British Polythene have done an enormous amount at developing
highly diffusing polythenes that not only reduce temperatures, but also massively reduce the
reflective glare. The leading UK product is Luminance THB that reduces glare versus normal
polythene by 30% and only costs 10% more. The reduced glare of Luminance is very
noticeable from afar’ 45.

There is still a lack of data on the impact of the currently available green polythenes,
especially when used to force early season Elsanta, on yield, crop timing or quality. One of
the issues is that filtered blue light is produced inside the tunnels. This could impact the
growth, quality and yield of fruit in terms of a tendency to stretch plants (make them floppy)

44
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk, accessed 24 January 2007
45
www.tunnelfacts.co.uk/tips.htm, accessed 24 January 2007

117
and there is also some anxiety about a possible effect on picking speeds (Interview
information). Further work is being undertaken in 2007 on the impact of landscape friendly
films. New films may also become available in due course. Their use could be helpful in
particularly sensitive locations, but, by themselves, could not overcome all the visual impact
issues.

Codes of practice

The NFU/British Summer Fruits code of practice for the use of polytunnels for the production
of soft fruit has embedded in the Assured Produce Scheme (Generic Crops Protocol) with
some adjustments in the language to permit auditing. This reflected a widening interpretation
of the food chain to incorporate all elements of good practice. However, the move was not
without controversy, particularly in Scotland (see report on Scotland).

The code contains provisions of a number of matters of concern including:

• They should not be sited within 30 metres of the boundary of a residential dwelling
• Noise must be minimised in early morning or late evening working
• Run-off should be effectively managed
• Tree or hedge planting should be used to mitigate visual impact
• Where possible less luminant polythene should be used to reduce glare
• Loose polythene should be secured
• Polytunnels should be rotated around the farm to minimise impact
• The polythene should be removed for six months of the year
• Waste polythene should be recycled
• In designated landscape areas, a landscape impact should be prepared indicating
mitigating measures

These recommendations seek to address many of the problems noted and no doubt they are
generally being followed by responsible growers. There is quite a lot of emphasis on
neighbouring dwellings, which has been one area of concern, but the code is possibly less
effective at dealing with broader visual impacts, e.g., when an area is viewed from a public
right of way. The involvement of the Assured Produce Scheme does provide a mechanism for
monitoring and enforcement.

Polytunnels and the planning system

This has been an area of considerable controversy in terms of whether polytunnels do and
should fall within the planning system. In a sense, polytunnels were already in the planning
system and in the crucial Tuesley Farm judgement by Sullivan J. in the High Court (discussed
more fully below), the argument made by the growers was a technical one that they
constituted a use of land, and because this was an agricultural use it was exempted from the
definition in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Tuesley Farm case
could be said to resolve that polytunnels, depending upon their size and permanence are likely
to be capable of requiring planning permission.

This section considers the following main topics:

• The extent to which polytunnels have been historically involved in the planning
system
• The development of a voluntary code of conduct by Herefordshire Council
• The Brinkman case and the High Court judgement in the case of Tuesley Farm, Surrey

118
 • The question of whether if polytunnels are to be subject to planning controls, whether
this should be done on a ‘whole farm’ basis
• Whether polytunnels should be treated differently in designated landscape areas
• Whether there should be national guidance on planning decisions relating to
polytunnels and, if so, what form it should take

Historical role of polytunnels in the planning system

Asked about the planning situation of polytunnels, one respondent commented, “There has
always been a lot of uncertainty … Big grower in Staffs, in north and south of the county, on
one side of the ditch able to put up polytunnels. Some geographical areas of the country
where there has been planning permission all the time. Always been a mixed bag … Growers
would enjoy some clarification”.

Entec carried out a postal survey of 299 local authorities and found that there was
considerable variability of opinion about whether polytunnels required planning permission.
Two tests needed to be applied: are polytunnels developments and, if they are, are they
permitted development? Consideration of whether they are development requires reference to
three principal criteria of size, permanence and physical attachment. One key case to consider
here is Skerrit of Nottingham Limited versus Secretary of State for the Environment, Regions
and Harrow London Borough Council ‘where operational development was held to have
occurred by the Court of Appeal for a marquee erected for eight months of the year.
Essentially the ruling was that the marquee took days to erect and there was “a significant
degree of attachment to the land on which it stood’ (Entec, 2006: 11). If a poly tunnel is
deemed to be development, the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO) can be
applied which ‘automatically grants planning permission for certain agricultural
developments within prescribed parameters’ (Entec, 2006: 12). There is still a requirement
for the farmer to notify the planning authority and to obtain prior approval on siting, design
and appearance.

The Herefordshire Code of Practice

The Herefordshire Code of Practice for the Temporary Agricultural Use of Polytunnels was
originally adopted in 2003 and revised in 2004. Its objective was to provide some consistency
of treatment in relation to polytunnels (with a particular focus on strawberries) and to provide
a mechanism to address ‘the difficult issue of balancing the need for a successful agricultural
economy with the environmental concerns expressed by campaigners against polytunnels’
(Environmental Scrutiny Committee, 2005: 2). This was against a backdrop where there was
no national guidance and the case law was neither comprehensive nor unambiguous.
Another consideration was that the ‘intention of the Voluntary Code as an information
gathering and assessment tool was to ensure that a degree of control is exercised, one of the
effects if which is that permanent use of polytunnels cannot be claimed from long usage’
(Environment Scrutiny Committee, 2004: 24).

The code required a grower to provide Herefordshire Council with information on a poly
tunnel checklist which was then used to determine whether planning permission was required.
Siting of polytunnels was to be more than 50 metres from any dwelling, subject to variation
following agreement with the neighbour (This was specified as 30 metres in the original
version and still is in the NFU code). The grower was required to submit a landscape impact
statement and was encouraged to use less reflective polythene on the tunnels. Siting of
polytunnels would be restricted to two years with no return for another two years.

119
From a grower perspective the Code was an attempt to forge a workable compromise between
conflicting interests,

‘Knew there was a growing, even before two test cases, underlying tensions in
Herefordshire. Council were trying to come to a working solution. Code of conduct, great
British compromise, engaged with grower community to come up with a workable code, also
open forums, tried to talk to all stakeholders. Growers would see that as being positive, great
thing about code, when we put up polytunnels the code requires you to write to neighbours, to
local parish councils. Nine times out of ten that communication takes out anxiety, we’d have
fields where we were going to put a tunnel, not put it into that section of field because it
would impair someone’s view. Code of Conduct has forced growers to engage with local
communities’. Environmentalists take a different view, arguing that the code ‘was a self-
serving device organised by growers.’

An underlying issue here is that Herefordshire is a relatively traditional county that has never
been industrialised and has a low population density. (For a consideration of these issues in
general terms and a discussion of Somerset where change occurred more rapidly, see Wood
2005, especially Chapter 2). Historically, the farming lobby was very influential, but
landscape protection has become more important over time. The county has a high proportion
of well educated retired people who provide a basis of support with skill and time for
environmental and amenity movements. The Code of Conduct did not really satisfy those with
landscape concerns. They argued that the Code was based on the notation of rotation which
sounded reasonable at first sight as good farming was based on rotation. However, it was
rotation within a total acreage. They also questioned the legal basis for the Code.

Natural England also argued that ‘Herefordshire Council’s adoption of a voluntary code for
the assessment and duration of use of polytunnels is inappropriate, and that where substantial
polytunnels are proposed they should require planning permission for development of any
length of siting’. Referring to planning appeal decisions, they stated that ‘The use of a
voluntary code challenges these rulings as it effectively places polytunnels outside of the
planning system and the tests applied to the General Permitted Development Order in these
appeal decisions’ (Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee, 2006: 28).

Following the High Court ruling made on the Tuesley Farm case in December 2006
(discussed below), Herefordshire Council decided in March 2007 to make planning
permission compulsory for new and some existing large-scale polytunnels. Their decision was
guided by legal advice not to deviate from the apparent legal precedent set by the Tuesley
farm case in order to avoid the risk of judicial review and/or referral to the Local Government
Ombudsman. Applications were to be accompanied by impact assessments. The Council also
served urgent enforcement notices against any polytunnels nearing the four year cut-off point
beyond which enforcement notices could not be issued, to be followed by the issue of notices
to newer existing tunnels.

This decision created a serious crisis for growers who would lose their businesses without
planning permission to continue. The NFU argued that the Surrey planning inspector had
made clear that his decision did not set a national precedent and that Herefordshire Council
had misinterpreted the Surrey judgement. Together with growers it proceeded to prepare an
application for a judicial review of the Council’s decision. Should such an application be
made, it is unlikely to determine the law, but will be confined to how Herefordshire Council
apply the Tuesley Farm judgement and the processes/procedures they adopt. One of the

120
difficulties here is requiring planning permission retrospectively because the Council have
changed their mind and this may be what the threat of judicial review is all about.

The Brinkman and Tuesley cases

The case of Brinkman Brothers Ltd. v Chichester District Council related to two appeals in
1999 against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of two polytunnels to grow
strawberries at a farm at Bosham within the Chichester Harbour AONB. It was found that
there was a substantial degree of physical attachment to the ground. On the related appeal it
was found that the polytunnels would cause considerable visual harm to the AONB.

However, it should be noted that in this case the plants did not grow out of the ground but
from industrial sized grow bags. ‘Part of the rationale in arriving at the decision was the fact
that the sub soil would never be exhausted of nutrients as fresh grow bags could be brought in
from time to time and therefore the location of the structure could remain fixed for a very
long time’. Thus, for Herefordshire Council, and probably for other local planning authorities,
‘This was a first instance decision and was persuasive rather than binding’ (Environment
Scrutiny Committee, 2004: 10).

In July 2003 a major UK supplier of soft fruit to Waitrose and Sainsbury, the Hall Hunter
Partnership, bought 470 acre Tuesley Farm just outside Godalming. The farm is in the Green
Belt, and about 66 per cent is in an Area of Great Landscape Value. It is also overlooked by
the nationally protected Surrey Hills AONB. From an amenity perspective, this was seen as a
‘clash between mechanisation and regimentation of the landscape and semi-natural traditional
farming landscape’ (Interview information). In 2004, following sterilisation of the soil with
methyl bromide intensive strawberry and raspberry production on the farm started under 12
foot high polytunnels. Following a campaign involving the locally based Tuesley Farm
Campaign Group, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the
Ramblers, Waverley Borough Council issued an enforcement notice.

The Hall Hunter Partnership appealed to the High Court, the appeal also covering an
associated caravan site for 250 farm workers. Mr Justice Sullivan ruled on 15 December
2006, rejecting all grounds for the challenge and insisting that planning permission was
necessary. Technically, the ruling applied only to a development on Green Belt land in
Surrey, but it was feared that the ruling might be treated as a precedent by local authorities,
but due to the comments of the judge about its specificity it was hoped that it wouldn’t/.

Should planning be controls be applied on a ‘whole farm’ basis?

A Herefordshire grower commented in interview, “If Code of Conduct wasn’t a line in sand
that couldn’t be sustained because it wasn’t a proper planning process, go to whole farm
planning”. ‘Farms Plans are a recognised tool for a farmer to support farm development
proposals .... Government is committed to whole farm plans through future agri-environment
schemes’ 46.

In particular, ‘Issues such as agricultural need (as suggested in the Nathaniel Litchfield report)
could be taken into account through consideration of Whole Farm Plans’ (Entec, 2006: 34).
(This report was undertaken for the No.10 Policy Unit by Litchfield Consultants in 2000/3
about general permitted development under the GDP). ‘The benefits of a whole farm plan

46
resources.peakdistrict.goc.uk/pubs/planning/agdev, accessed 8 June 2007

121
from the perspective of the planning authority is that it allows individual planning proposals
to be seen within the context of the long term proposals for the farm. Whole farm plans
therefore provide a mechanism to help justify development proposals, allowing planning
advice to be seen in a broader context’47.

Whether polytunnels will be brought within the planning system is yet to be finally resolved,
although it is at least a strong possibility that they will be. In that event, there would still seem
to be a strong case for considering applications on a Whole Farm basis. However,
environmentalists are concerned that ‘Whole farm plans, bureaucratically-devised, controlled
and applied may again obscure or prevent public participation’.

Should there be a different approach in designated landscape areas?

Nationally designated landscapes cover some 23 per cent of English farmland. A view taken
by a national environmental campaigner was that polytunnels should be discouraged in
nationally designated landscapes; a very sceptical view of them should be taken in locally
designated landscapes; and the green belt should be an additional consideration. He argued
that “In Herefordshire and parts of Sussex, polytunnels coming for first time into pastoral
landscapes dominated by sheep and cattle until recently”. A local campaigner thought that a
likely outcome was greater protection of designated areas, arguing that polytunnels were
appropriate for flat and sparsely populated areas, but elsewhere scale and location should be
taken into account. Natural England has stated that “We are developing a national policy
position that will need to consider if the very nature of extensive polytunnels cannot allow
their effects … upon nationally-significant protected landscapes to be adequately mitigated”
(Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee, 2006: 29).

It is difficult to disagree with the conclusions of the Entec Report (2006: 32) ‘Protected
landscapes, by definition, should be accorded special treatment, although balancing the
demands of a designated landscape with demonstrable need is difficult and needs to be
undertaken on a case-by-case basis. AONBs are working landscapes which, to some extent,
have to deal with challenges to their established character and function’.

Whilst there cannot be a prohibition of the use of polytunnels in designated landscapes, the
visual impact of any proposed development on the intrinsic natural beauty of the landscape
would have to be considered in each case. Economic benefits need to be weighed in the
balance, but their presence is not the same as a development being ‘necessary for the
economic and social wellbeing of the area’ (Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee, 2006:
40).

In relation to designated landscape areas, the decision made on 21 June 2007 in relation to
Nashes Farm, Penshurst is of considerable interest, particularly in terms of the way in which it
balances landscape against commercial considerations. The appellant wanted to use
polytunnels to grow raspberries on the site, situated on rising ground, for a period of up to six
years. The site was in the Metropolitan Green Belt, the High Weald Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and a designated Special Landscape Area. A consideration that clearly
influenced the decision was the extensive network of footpaths running through and around

47
www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/RE0119/RE0119_1840_FRP.doc, accessed 8 June
2007

122
Nashes Farm, while the polytunnels were also especially noticeable from the car park of the
‘Spotted Dog’ public house which is a popular public viewpoint.

The Inspector’s report emphasised that ‘the landscape is of high visual quality’. The lie of the
land meant ‘that the adverse effects of the development are substantial and wide reaching’ and
effective screening was not practical, nor would the use of green polythene make any great
difference (the Inspector visited the Tuesley Farm site). The Inspector’s view was that
‘Collectively, the harsh, bright polytunnels make a strong statement in the landscape. They
are detracting features that have a significantly adverse impact on their surroundings. Being
reflective, they are particularly intrusive in bright sunshine’ (APP.G245/A/06/2021505: 4).

In assessing commercial factors, the Inspector looked at all the factors that have been
rehearsed in this report, including the need to farmers to maintain their livelihood, supplying
fruit to meet government health objectives, and the reduction of long-distance, air-freighted
imports. He also accepted that there were few areas in Kent that had soil and climatic
conditions as favourable to raspberry production and that many such areas were likely to be
found within the AONB. Nevertheless, he came to the conclusion ‘that the highest priority
must be afforded to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape in the AONB’
(APP/G2245/A/06/2021505: 4). He therefore dismissed the appeals, other than to allow the
compliance period to be extended until the end of the 2007 growing season. The implication
of this decision is that new poly tunnel developments will not be permitted in designated
landscapes.

National guidance on decisions on polytunnels

When the interviews were being conducted respondents were asked whether they thought this
might be a helpful way of assisting with decisions on a difficult set of issues. Concern was
expressed that any guidance would be so general that it would be of no value. Given the great
variety of structures covered by the term ‘polytunnels’, any policy statement would have to
make clear exactly what it is referring to or it will cause more confusion. It was argued that
the Tuesley Farm case left open the question of what is a lower limit in terms of requiring
planning permission.

A national environmental campaigner commented, “The appetite for national guidance is very
limited unless about climate change. Good practice guidance is almost useless because no one
takes any notice of it”. Nevertheless, Entec recommends (2006: 35) the development of a
practice note for development control planners ‘which is specifically aligned to the
requirements of AONBs in respect of the protection of visual quality’. One possible further
measure would be to add to Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 7 which deals with
Sustainable Development in Rural Areas a statement that poly tunnel developments that are
substantial in size should be treated as built development and setting out some recommended
criteria for the consideration of applications. This could follow E5 on agricultural dwellings.
The possibility of a ministerial letter to local authorities was mooted, but this would probably
have been a step too far.

In July 2007 the Chief Planner at the Department for Communities and Local Government
sent a letter to all Chief Planning Officers with the aim of clarifying the planning position on
polytunnels following Herefordshire’s actions in March. Industry stakeholders had seen the
Hereford decision as a big surprise as the judge in the High Court had been clear that it was a
case specific judgement. The Chief Planning made it clear that it was the Department’s view
that the Tuesley Farm case did not mean that all future polytunnels would necessarily need

123
planning permission. In considering whether to take enforcement action in relation to
polytunnels provided without planning permission, the key factor to take into account was the
damage caused to local amenity, otherwise the matter could be dealt with by a retrospective
planning application. Local authorities were free to attach conditions as part of the approval
process. However, as stated in PPS7, planning authorities should recognise the important and
varied role of agriculture and support planning proposals that promote sustainable, diverse
and adaptable agricultural sectors. Therefore, a local planning authority should continue to
assess the planning status of a particular polytunnel on a case by case basis.

Asked to comment on this letter, an environmental stakeholder responded: “From my

perspective we have gone round in a great big circle, and we are back where we started, which
is fine and what I hoped would happen …It is still left to authorities to determine on a case by
case basis and in my view that is right”.

A grower commented, “The general response from the Chief Planning Office has been
warmly welcomed by growers. The fact that the Hall Hunter case does not set [a] precedent,
that tunnels do not automatically necessitate planning and the fact that councils should judge
the individual merits of each case are very welcomed. In Herefordshire. this has helped the
planners to take a more consultative approach”. However, it was felt that crippling
uncertainties remained with growers unable to take strategic decisions about the development
of their businesses. “Growers encouraged to engage with the planners and submit some form
of application are wary that despite good intent and warm noises from planning officials, that
these applications fall at the last hurdle when political pressure on elected officials means that
they bend to ‘nimby’ opinion. Planners with the exceptions of a few councils (e.g., Forest of
Dean) have still not created a workable framework that will enable tunnels to be moved
regularly within the crop rotation”. It was noted that growers in AONB remained ‘particularly
anxious’.

5.3.4. Conclusions

Polytunnels enable growers of strawberries, raspberries and other soft fruit crops to produce
for six months of the year instead of six weeks to higher quality standards. This ensures a
reliable supply of these crops to consumers at competitive prices with potential health
benefits. Indeed, in the wet and cold summer of 2007 the protection from the rain offered was
vital in ensuring continuing supply and low wastage of crops and inputs. There is also
potentially a carbon footprint benefit as a result of relatively local supply, but more research is
required to confirm the gains made through the displacement of imported produce and their
extent. This would need to take into account the whole production process including such
factors as polythene and steel production, emissions generated by travel by temporary
workers etc. However, such life cycle analyses are not methodologically straightforward,
particularly in terms of being parsimonious.

Polytunnels have a substantial visual impact, especially in areas of intrinsic natural beauty.
Recent court decisions indicate that in designated areas the landscape is the priority.
However, it is important to remember that even in such an area each farm is different in
visual impact, landscape and topography, so needs treating on a case by case basis. There are
also other issues to consider, particularly relating to water run off. Many of these problems
can be ameliorated by good management, but not all growers necessarily consistently adhere
to the high standards of the majority. Evidence of impacts on rural tourism is largely
anecdotal and may not be sufficiently substantial to justify further research. Polytunnel

124
developments of a substantial scale are now effectively within the planning system but this
remains a matter of controversy with growers concerned about what they see as a threat to
their livelihoods and the ability of local residents to operate an effective veto on development.
Nevertheless, it does provide a framework for resolving the conflicts that have occurred,
particularly now that national guidance has been offered. As in many contentious questions,
a balance has to be drawn between a variety of perspectives and interests.

5.3.5. The use of polytunnels in Scotland

The interviews in England illustrated a high level of controversy and public debate about the
use and impact of polytunnels in horticultural production. This is not the case in Scotland. An
analysis of national media coverage confirms that it is not an issue that has gathered
momentum in Scotland. Scottish interviewees did not raise this issue of their own volition,
although they were aware of English developments. Yet there is evidence that Scotland may
develop in a similar direction as public sentiment shifts. Further, there is evidence that
Scottish industry may have to adapt to practices developed to address what are, so far, English
concerns.

The use of plastic in horticultural production in Scotland is a relatively recent phenomenon. It

was initially used as ground cover, in preference to straw, to control weeds and to raise soil
temperatures. Plastic covering is also used to aid seed germination. Polytunnels were then
used in order to take advantage of the greater light from longer days in Scotland. It also
protects from rain that spoils soft fruits such as strawberries and raspberries. The use of such
tunnels is, according to industry representatives, important for ‘extending the growing season
in Scotland and to ensure that we can eat Scottish grown soft fruit most of the year’. This is
because of the cooler and wetter weather experienced in Scotland, but also because of the
longer days in Scotland. The poly-tunnel issue is one of (increasing) importance.

At present, there is as yet no Scottish Executive advice or position on this issue. SEPA
explained it was not part of their remit, with the exception of waste disposal of plastic which
needed to conform to the EU Waste Directive. Discussions with the association of Local
Authorities in Scotland revealed that they too had no set position. An interview with a local
authority in an area where horticulture is a significant part of the local economy, revealed that
as it stands such structures are considered as ‘ancillary to purposes of agriculture’ and not
permanent structures. As such, they do not currently fall under the development consent laws.
The interviewee suggested that in the future several questions may emerge, such as, ‘Can you
have too many in one place?’ ‘Are they “development” requiring consent?’ ‘Do we need to
back employment and return on investment?’. He explained that the position in Scotland was
unclear, but that everyone was watching what happened in the planning cases underway in
England.

A producer group explained that the issue has as yet not been directly felt in Scotland,
because it has not become the subject of planning laws or decisions by local authorities under
such regimes. They also observed that ‘the areas where most are sited soft fruit production are
a recognised local industry’. As such, it was viewed as largely part of the general landscape.

The CPRE in England is a vociferous defender of landscape and aesthetics, and has objected
to the proliferation of polytunnels in some areas of England. Rural Scotland made a media
statement suggesting that regulation needed to be considered in Scotland as early as 2005
(BBC 2005), however, the campaign has not taken off. The CPRE equivalent in Scotland

125
(now called the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland) has not been active on the
issue of recent times.

A Scottish rural-focussed NGO indicated at interview that this was a ‘subject that we had not
really addressed because of time’. Issues around wind farm developments and participation in
the Scottish Landscape Forum have soaked up limited resources. Further, they indicated that
they did not believe any environmental or rural group had an existing policy on this issue.
This is supported by the absence of any ready answer to questioning by the researcher to
relevant non-governmental stakeholders: although one group raised concerns about the impact
of the use of plastic to cover the soil (to keep weeds down and warm the soil) on soil
condition. It seems that any change in Scotland will be led by the precedent presented in
England, as opposed to ‘home-grown’ demand for change.

Scottish practices with respect of poly tunnel use are also linked to English developments in
another sense. It has become an active issue for Scotland because of the moves in England by
British industry and marketing organisations to re-assure the consumer that the issue is being
dealt with. Initially, the British Summer Fruits48 marketing body introduced some limits on
use of poly-tunnels into its code of practice. This code of practice is going to be linked to the
Assured Produce Scheme which is in turn a prerequisite for producers to gain most
supermarket contracts in UK. One of its key planks is limiting the time under which ground
can be under cover.

At the time of writing, a Scottish producer groups indicated ‘…it was fighting this move
because if it happens it will limit use of poly-tunnels in Scotland as well, and thus have a
negative impact upon productivity and economic viability’. They have suggested a revised
wording of 'Polythene covering the frames of a moveable (or temporary) polytunnel’ to rule
out many Scottish tunnels that are of a more permanent nature.

The producer group were also objecting to the fact that the BSF Code was not fully
transcribed into the Assured Produce Protocols. In the BSF Code there is a clause that reads:
"Polytunnels may be located closer to residential dwellings if they do not obscure the views
from the dwellings concerned and after consultation with the residents." They stated that this
was a useful clause as it would allow a grower to not comply with arguments from a
neighbour whose view was not obscured but it is missing in AP's version. The producer
group have proposed that this sentence should be added back in. They have also noted that
there was an unhelpful change in the BSF Code and the AP standards which altered the 30m
distance to the boundary of neighbours rather than the dwelling. In the short term, the
polytunnel code has not been made compulsory by the Assured Produce scheme for this year,
while they consider how best to proceed.

In terms of the environmental impact of waste disposal of plastic, one constraint is the
reported lack of recycling capacity (interviewee reported only one plant – in Dumfries – is
capable of recycling the material).

More generally, it is important to recognise that this issue operates at the juncture of several
policy priorities and agendas. On the one hand the desire to raise the nutritional standards of
the general population, such as ‘five a day’ campaigns, suggests the consumption of higher
levels of fruit and vegetable all year round. Further, the emphasis on reduced food miles and
‘local produce’, seems to dictate the need to lengthen the period in which Scottish produce is

48
www.britishsummerfruits.co.uk/images/polytunnels_new_final.pdf

126
available. On the other hand, the development of housing in formerly rural or peri-urban areas
conflicts with many individual’s assumptions about rural landscapes. Where the use of plastic
tunnels occurs in concentrations and over extended periods then this objection to the non-rural
aesthetic is likely to be heightened. One could anticipate that progress on this issue will rely
on an emerging prioritisation among the competing agendas listed above.

This tension between agendas is identified as an issue by several interviewees. One agri-
environmental group said it is concerned that British people eat fresh local produce – to cut
down on health issues and also to reduce food miles. However, these aims require as long a
growing season as possible, which in turn seems to imply use of polytunnels and other
production processes that ensure cheap UK produce and long growing seasons. This tension
was also raised by a producer group that identified a contradiction between environmental
costs of local food and of cutting food miles. Energy and the use of polythene were two core
issues over which some kind of compromise may be necessary to ensure concerns over local
food consumption are not dislodged by concerns to minimise environmental impact.

127
6. Conclusions

In terms of the overall environmental impact of UK agriculture, the horticulture sector has a
very small footprint; based on the commodities in this study, horticulture occupies 0.8% of
the land area and is responsible for 1.0% of the overall environmental footprint of agriculture.
Whilst this may suggest that horticulture has a relatively large environmental impact in
comparison to the area it occupies, this view must be considered against the fact that
horticulture is a high value industry and accounts for 8% of the total value of UK agriculture.

The horticultural industry is very diverse, encompassing vegetables, fruit and ornamentals and
that diversity leads to a wide range of economic activity. Some sectors, like top fruit, are
currently economically depressed while at the other end of the range, carrots and protected
lettuce and strawberries are providing high value and good financial returns. In fact, the soft
fruit market is currently enjoying its best trading conditions in years although this is not
reflected very well in our analysis which is based on an average of the last three years. Apart
from top fruit, the horticultural commodities in this study are strong economically and show
high returns on investment but they remain vulnerable since they often rely on small number
of crops which are often highly specialized.

Large parts of the horticultural industry have a restricted logistics supply chain and customer
base leading to potential over reliance on the multiple retailers and limited commodities,
which results in good trading volumes but low margins. Margins are also vulnerable to
increases in the cost of energy and labour, both of which are vital to the industry. A lack of
immigrant labour is currently causing serious concern within some sections of the industry.

Figure 8. The environmental, economic and socio-economic impact of agriculture

250
S o c io - e c o no m ic
E c o no m ic
E nv iro nm e nt a l
200

15 0

10 0

50

0
G la s s Veg F lo we r Top F. P o t, SB Whe a t D a iry S he e p

In terms of the overall environmental impact of UK agriculture, the arable sector has a mixed
footprint; based on the commodities in this study, arable farming occupies 42% of the land
area yet is responsible for 26% of the overall environmental footprint. This is a result of

128
arable farming being dominated by winter wheat which occupies a large area but on a per
hectare basis has a very small footprint.

The livestock sector, as covered in this study, occupies 57% of the total farming area and is
responsible for 73% of the total environmental footprint. Of the two industries examined in
this study, milk is far the dominant, being responsible for 44% of the total agricultural
footprint.

Figure 8 presents the combined impact of the three main areas of this study: environmental,
economic and socio-economic. The environmental contribution is the inverse of the total
footprint attributed by sector, so the lower the value, the higher the environmental impact.
The economic and socio-economic aspects are the same as section 4. In terms of overall
sustainability, the figure shows that the glasshouse production, field vegetables and flower
production perform well and better than the arable crops. The sheep and top fruit sectors
perform relatively poorly and the dairy industry’s environmental issues are not enough to
overcome its great size and value.

129
7. Further work

There are a number of areas where the study is weak and additional work is required:

1. Additional crops. The environmental footprint, as it stands, considers 12 commodities

which take into account only 35% of the farmed area in England and 37% in the UK. The
present study excluded a number of significant crops including other field vegetables,
oilseed rape, maize, field legumes, beef, pigs and poultry. If the environmental footprint
concept is to be used successfully as a policy tool it will be necessary to extend the
analysis to include as many of the missing crops as possible. If the level of the UK’s
farmed area covered by environmental footprinting could be increased to 85 to 90% then
the usefulness of the footprint would be increased.

2. Refinement. The current study is weak in areas where livestock stocking rates affect the
environmental footprint, e.g. sheep and dairy. Greater accuracy and an increase in the area
of the farmed area covered could be obtained by dividing these sectors into appropriate
sub sections which would reflect actual production systems. For example, sheep could be
divided into three: hill, upland and lowland, while the dairy footprint would benefit from
two or three different production systems aimed at different milk yields. If pigs were to be
included then two systems, indoor and outdoor should be considered.

3. Analysis. Data exists within the June Census series to analyse and present the results at
county/unitary authority level in addition to regional level (an example is shown as Figure
1). This additional analysis would allow smaller areas with high environmental footprints
to be highlighted.

4. Horticulture. There are certain aspects of horticultural production that are not considered,
or not assessed, in this study. These include the use of peat in seedling and ornamental
production and the use of soil sterilants in glasshouse production. The latter especially
could have a large impact within the footprint.

130
8. References

Aberdeen Press and Journal. (2005). Working to plug growing skills gaps in rural sector’, Jan
22, p.34.

Aberdeen Press and Journal. (2006). Seed potato sector gets a lift, 7 July, p.22.

ACRE. 2007. Managing the footprint of agriculture: Towards a comparative assessment of

risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. Defra, London.

AEBC. 2003. Scoping note on new AEBC workstream: Environmental footprint. Agricultural
and Environment Biotechnology Commission. Defra, London.

Anderson B, Ruhs M, Rogaly B & Spencer C. (2006). Fair enough? Central and East
European migrants in low-wage employment in the UK (Oxford: Compas). Commission for
Rural Communities (2007) A8 migrant workers in rural areas (Cheltenham)

Anon. (2005). An international peer review of a Defra funded report ‘Sustainable

consumption and production – development of an evidence base study of ecological
footprinting’. Co-ordinating reviewer Dr Ian Moffat. Defra, London, UK.

Atkinson G, Baldock D, Bowyer C, Newcombe J, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce D & Provins A.

2004. Framework for environmental accounts for agriculture. Economic for the Environment
Consultancy, London.

Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliett O, Kleijn R,

Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon H, Weidema B & van Zeijts H. 1997.
Harmonisation of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Bedford, Silsoe
Research Institute. Final Report of EU AIR3-CT94-2028.

Azapagic A, Emsley A & Hamerton I. 2003. Polymers: The Environment and Sustainable
Development. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-471-87740-0

Azapagic A, Roland C & Perdan S (Editors). 2004. Sustainable Development in Practice:

Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-85609-3

Bailey AP, Basford WD, Penlington N, Park JR, Keatinge JDH, Rehman T, Tranter RB &
Yates CM. 2003. A comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming
systems in the UK. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 97(1-3): 241-253.

BBC. (2005). Tougher crop tunnel rules sought, Monday, 19 December 2005
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4542852.stm).

Beaton C (Editor). 2006. The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7. SAC, Edinburgh.

Best Food Forward (2007) Personal UK footprint caculator at www.ecologicalfootprint.com

Benolt B. (2007). ‘Outcry as German crop rots’. Financial Times, 31 May 2007.

131
Blythman J. (2004). Shopped: the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. (London: Harper
Perennial).

Brentrup F, Kusters J, Kuhlmann H & Lammel J. 2001. Application of the Life Cycle
Assessment methodology to agricultural production: an example of sugar beet production
with different forms of nitrogen fertilisers. European Journal of Agronomy 14: 221-233.

Boyes R. (2007). ‘Asparagus crisis spoils spring rite’. The Times, 13 April 2007

Buglass D. (2004). Calls for an independent Scottish seed potato sector. The Herald
(Glasgow), p.26.

Cederberg C & Mattsson B. 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production - a comparison of
conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 49-60.

Charles R, Jolliet O, Gaillard & Pellet D. 2006. Environmental analysis of intensity level in
wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment
113(1-4): 216-225.

Cowell S & Clift R. 2000. A methodology for assessing soil quantity and quality in life cycle
assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 321-331.

Cuadra M & Björklund J. 2007. Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of
agricultural crops in Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators 7: 133-149.

Defra. 2003. Instructions for collecting the data and completing the farm return, Farm
Business Survey. Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Farm and Animal
Health Economics Division.

Defra. 2005. Agriculture and food-quick statistics. National Statistics Defra, UK

Defra. 2007. The farm business survey. Farm accounts in England. Department of the
Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Farm and Animal Health Economics Division, Crown
Copyright (http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/asd/fbs/default.htm)

Defra. 2007. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2006. HMSO, Norwich, UK.

Defra Statistics. 2007. Defra statistic office York. Specified data on request for various
horticultural sectors.

Defra online CO2 Calculator. 2007. Data Methodology and Assumptions Paper June 2007
and NAEI (National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory)/Defra Conversion factors

Dench S, Hurstfield J, Hill D & Akroyd K. 2006. Employers’ use of migrant labour: Main
report. Home Office Online Report 04/06.

Dundee Courier. 2007. Berries ‘risk’ over lack of migrant workers. 29/5/07.

Dundee Courier. 2007. Push to tell migrant workers basic rights. 18/6/2007

132
Entec. 2006. The Countryside Agency: An Investigation into Polytunnel Development in
AONBs and National Parks. (Leamington: Entec UK Limited)

Environment Scrutiny Committee. 2004. Scrutiny Report: Review of the Voluntary Code of
Practice to Control the Siting of Polytunnels in Herefordshire. Review of the Poly Tunnel
Review Working Group, County of Herefordshire District Council.

Environment Scrutiny Committee. 2005. Minutes of the meeting held on 24 October 2005,
County of Herefordshire District Council.

Food Ethics. 2007. Big retail, 2 (2), 2-16

George C & Dias S. 2005. Sustainable consumption and production – development of an

evidence base: study of ecological footprinting. Final report for Defra CTHS0401. RPA Ltd,
Norfolk, UK.

Glen NA & Pannell DJ. 1998. The economics and application of sustainability indicators in
agriculture. Paper presented at the 42nd annual conference of the Australian Agricultural and
Resource Economics Society, University of New England, Armidale, Jan 19-21, 1998.

Global Footprint Network. 2007. Global Footprint Network at www.footprintnetwork.org

Grönroos J, Seppälä J, Voutilainen P, Seuri P & Koikkalainen K. 2006. Energy use in

conventional and organic milk and rye bread production in Finland. Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment 117(2-3): 109-118.

Hartridge O & Pearce D. 2001. Is UK agriculture sustainable? Environmentally adjusted

economic accounts for UK agriculture. London, University College London: 35.

Van der Werf HMG & Petit J. 2001. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agricultural at
the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture and
Ecosystems and Environment 93. 131-145.

Hospido A, Moreira MT & Feijoo G. 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of galician milk
production. International Dairy Journal 13: 783-796.

Home Office. 2005. Agricultural Sector Consultation. (not a statement of Home Office policy
but of stakeholder views).

Johnes PJ. 1996. Evaluation and management of the impact of land use change on the
nitrogen and phosphorus load delivered to surface waters: the export coefficient modelling
approach. Journal of Hydrology 183: 323-349.

IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Volume 4. Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use.

Kinnaird J. 2006. Tarnished by gold-plating obsession. Aberdeen Press and Journal, Jan 21,
p.38.

Knight A. 2007. Food that talks. Food Ethics 2(2), 12-13.

133
Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degnil J & Tette J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental
impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139: 1-8.

Krotscheck C & Narodoslawsky M. 1996. The Sustainable Process Index A new dimension in
ecological evaluation. Ecological Engineering 6: 241-258.

Lantra. 2006. Action Plan for Production Horticulture.

(www.lantra.co.uk/ProdHort/documents/ProdHortIndustryActionPlan.pdf)

Lewis KA, Brown CD, Hart A & Tzilivakis J. 2003. p-EMA (III): overview and application
of a software system designed to assess the environmental risk of agricultural pesticides.
23(1): 85-96.

Lobley M, Reed M, Butler A, Courtney P & Warren M. 2005. The impact of organic farming
on the rural economy in England. Research report No.11 to Defra. Exeter, University of
Exeter.

Margni M, Rossier D, Crettaz P & Jolliet O. 2002. Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides
on human health and ecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 93: 379-392.

Maud J, Edwards-Jones G & Quin F. 2001. Comparative evaluation of pesticide risk indices
for policy development and assessment in the United Kingdom. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 86: 59-73.

McKay S & Winkelman-Gleed A. 2005. Migrant Workers in the East of England. (Histon:
East of England Development Agency).

Metcalf, J.P. and B.F. Cormack. 2000. Energy use in organic farming systems. Report to
Defra Research project code OF0182, 49 p.

Milà i Canals L, Cowell SJ, Sim S & Basson L. 2007. Comparing domestic versus imported
apples: a focus on energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 14 (5): 338-
344.

Milla, I. 2003. The use of indicators to assess the sustainability of farms which have
converted to organic production in the UK. A thesis presented towards the award of Msc
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Coventry University, UK.

Moerschner J & Gerowitt B. 1999. Direct and indirect energy use in arable farming – an
example on winter wheat in Northern Germany. In Agricultural data for life cycle
assessments. Eds: Weidema BP & Meeusen MJG. The Hague, Agricultural Economics
Research Institute (LEI).

Mosley M. 2003. Rural Development, Principles and Practice Sage Press.

Mouron P, Nemecek T, Scholz RW & Weber O. 2006. Life cycle management on Swiss fruit
farms: Relating environmental and income indicators for apple-growing. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment 58(3): 561-578.

NFUS. 2006. Market Investigation: The supply of Groceries by retailers in the United
Kingdom, NFU Scotland Submission. (http://www.competition-

134
commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2006/grocery/third_party_submissions_trade.htm accessed 25
June 2007)

Nielsen V & Luoma T. 1999. Energy consumption: an overview of data foundation and
extract of results. In Agricultural data for life cycle assessments. Eds: Weidema BP &
Meeusen MJG. The Hague, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI).

Nix J, Hill P & Edwards A. 2005. Farm Management Pocketbook, 36th Edition 2006. Imperial
College London.

Pretty J, Brett C, Gee D, Hine RE, Mason CF, Morison JIL, Raven H, Rayment MD & van
der Biji G. 2000. As assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture." Agricultural
Systems. 65: 113-136.

Pretty JN, Mason CF, Nedwell DB, Hine RE, Leaf S & Dils R. 2003. Environmental Costs of
Freshwater Eutrophication in England and Wales. Environmental Science & Technology
37(2): 201-208.

PSD, Pesticides Safety Directorate. 2007 . The pesticides register database. PSD, an executive
agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in the UK.
www.pesticides.gov.uk/psd_databases.asp

Reus JA & Leendertse PC. 2000. The environmental yardstick for pesticides: a practical
indicator used in the Netherlands. Crop Proctection 19: 637-641.

Reus JA, Leendertse PC, Bockstaller C, Fomsgaard I, Gutsche V, Lewis K, Nilsson C,

Pussemier L, trevisan M, van der Werf H, Alfarroba F, Blümel S, Isart J, McGrath D &
Seppälä T. 2002. Comparison and evaluation of eight pesticides environmental risk indicators
developed in Europe and recommendations for future use. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 90: 177-187.

Rigby D, Howlett D & Woodhouse P. 2001. A review of indicators of agricultural and rural
livelihood sustainability. DFID Working paper 1 for Project No. R7076CA. ISBN: 1
902518616

Rigby D, Woodhouse P, Young T & Burton M. 2001. Constructing a farm level indicator of
sustainable agricultural practice. Ecological Economics 39, p463-478.

Rogaly B. (2007). ‘Pressure on suppliers pushes worker exploitation’. Food Ethics 2(1), p. 8.

Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. 2007. A review of recent developments in, and the practical use
of, ecological footprinting methodologies: A report to the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs. Defra, London.

Schmutz, U. C. Firth, C. Nendel, R. Lillywhite and C. Rahn (2006) A method to predict

impacts of NVZ and Water Framework legislation on UK vegetable and arable farming.
Aspects of Applied Biology 80, 19-27

Silgram M, Waring R, Anthony S & Webb J. 2001. Intercomparison of national & IPCC
methods for estimating N loss from agricultural land. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60:
189-195.

135
Simmons C, Lewis K & Barrett J. 2000. Two feet - two approaches: a componet-based model
of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics 32: 375-380.

Simms A. (2007). Tescopoly (London: Constable)

Simpson D. (2007). ‘Migrant motives’. Food Ethics 2(1), pp. 6-7.

Smyth AJ & Dumanski J. 1993. FESLM: An international framework for evaluating

sustainability land management. World Soil Resources Report 73. FAO Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Soegaard H, Jensen NO, Boegh E, Hasager C, Schelde K & Thomsen A. 2003. Carbon
dioxide exchange over agricultural landscape using eddy correlation and footprint modelling.
114(3-4): 153-173.

Southern Area Planning Sub-Committee. (2006). Erection of (Spanish) Polytunnels to be

Rotated Around Fields as Required by Crops under Cultivation at Pennoxstowe Court, Kings
Caple. County of Herefordshire District Council, 20 December.

Stewart J. (2003). Nation’s Agriculture policy just a ‘dream’. The Scotsman, 5 May, p.17.

Turley D, McKay H & Boatman N. 2005. Environmental impacts of cereal and oilseed rape
cropping in the UK and assessment of the potential impacts arising from cultivation for liquid
biofuel production. York, HGCA: 1-54.

Tzilivakis J, Jaggard K, Lewis KA, May M & Warner DJ. 2005a. Environmental impact and
economic assessment for UK sugar beet production systems. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 107: 341-358.

Tzilivakis J, Warner DJ, May M, Lewis KA & Jaggard K. 2005b. An assessment of the
energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the
UK. Agricultural Systems 85(2): 101-119.

van der Werf H. 2004. Life Cycle Analysis of field production of fibre hemp, the effect of
production practices on environmental impacts. Euphytica 140(1-2): 13-23.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. (1996). Horticultural Business Data. Reading, UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, University of Reading.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 1998. Horticultural Business Data. Reading, UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, University of Reading.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 2000. Horticultural Business Data. Reading, UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, University of Reading.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 2002. Horticultural Business Data. Reading,UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, The University of Reading.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 2004. Horticultural Business Data. Reading,UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, The University of Reading.

136
Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 2005. Horticultural Business Data. Reading,UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, The University of Reading.

Vaughan RL & Crane RT. 2007. Horticultural Business Data. Reading,UK, Department of
Agricultural & Food Economics, The University of Reading.

Vereijken P. 1997. A methodical way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming
systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms. European Journal Agronomy 7, pp. 235-
250.

Vergunst P. 2007. Seasonal agricultural migrant labour in Scotland – the need for improved
understanding. AA211 Special Study Report for SEERAD. SAC, Aberdeen.

Vilain NL. 2000. La Methode IDEA. Educagri éditions.

Wackernagel W & Rees W. 1996. Our ecological footprint – reducing human impact on the
earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.

Wadsworth RA, carey PD, Heard MS, Hill MO, Hinsley SA, Meek WR, Pannell DJ, Ponder
V, renwick AW & James KL. 2003. A review of research into the environmental and socio-
economic impacts of contemporary and alternative arable cropping systems. CEH,
Huntingdon, UK.

Watson. (2005). Quango in climbdown over water charges reveals its proposed fees. 30 Dec,
15.

Watson J. (2006). Stores under fire over potato prices as NFU steps up campaign. Aberdeen
Press and Journal, 23 June, p. 21.

Whitehead R. 2007. The UK Pesticide Guide 2007. British Crop Protection Council.

Williams AG, Audsley E & Sandars DL. 2006. Determining the environmental burdens and
resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report,
Defra ISO0205. Bedford: Cranfield University and Defra.

Woods M. (2005). Contesting Rurality: Politics in the British Countryside. (Aldershot:

Ashgate).

World Wide Fund for Nature. 2006. Living Planet Report 2006. Gland, Switzerland.

Zaronaite D & Tirzite A. (2006). The Dynamics of Migrant Labour in South Lincolnshire.
(Nottingham: East Midlands Development Agency and Lincolnshire Enterprise).

137
ANNEX A - Commodity Inventory Sheets

Commodity: Apple (dessert) Cox apple at 1250 trees per ha

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Rootstock kg/ha 41.7 16 667 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07

Fertilizer - nitrogen kg/ha 52.0 41 2132 RB209 assumes index 1
phosphate kg/ha 8.0 19 152 RB209 assumes index 1
potassium kg/ha 54.0 6 324 RB209 assumes index 1
Ground preparation Labour hours/ha 0.2 0.62 0 Based on Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 2.3 38 89 Based on Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Grass/clover seed kg/ha 35.0 8 280 IGER
Orchard establishment Wooden stakes kg/ha 208.0 16 3328
Wire kg/ha 33.0 20 660
Plastic stem protectors kg/ha 17.0 21 357
Labour hours/ha 16.7 0.62 10
Diesel litres/ha 3.3 38 125
Irrigation tape (polyethene) kg/ha 3 46 152 Lampkin et al & T systems
Orchard maintenance Diesel litres/ha 5.7 38 215
Spraying - (7 applications) Labour hours/ha 2.1 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 12.6 38 479 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Fungicide - myclobutanil (EIQ 33.0) kg/ha 0.39 168 66 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 2800 Landseer (Systhane)
Spraying - (5 applications) Labour hours/ha 1.8 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 10.8 38 410 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Fungicide - captan (EIQ 15.8) kg/ha 5.83 168 979 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 3150 Makhteshim Alpha Captan
Spraying - (2 applications) Labour hours/ha 0.6 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 3.6 38 137 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Insecticide - chloropyrifos (EIQ 43.5) kg/ha 0.69 214 148 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 3150 Makhteshim Alpha Chloropyrifos
Spraying - (3 applications) Labour hours/ha 0.9 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 5.4 38 205 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Insecticide - methoxyfenozide (EIQ 33.4) kg/ha 0.25 214 53 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 1500 Bayer Runner
Spraying - (1 application) Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Herbicide - glyphosate (EIQ 15.3) kg/ha 1.12 454 508 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 400 Monsanto Roundup
Spraying - (1 application) Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Herbicide - dicamba (EIQ 28.0) kg/ha 0.06 264 16 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Herbicide - MCPA (EIQ 36.7) kg/ha 1.06 264 280 Pesticide Usage Survey 2005
Herbicide - mecoprop-P (EIQ 21.0) kg/ha 0.17 264 45 Pesticide Usage Survey 2006
Water litres/ha 200 Headland Transfer
Spraying - (4 applications) Labour hours/ha 1.2 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Diesel litres/ha 7.2 38 274 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Herbicide - gibberellins (EIQ ?) kg/ha 0.01 214 2 Pesticide Usage Survey 2004
Water litres/ha 2000
All season labour hours/ha 185 Nix 2005
Harvesting, grading & packing Labour hours/ha 250 0.62 155 Nix 2006
Diesel litres/ha 30.0 38 1140
Irrigation/fertigation Water litres/ha 400,000 Based on Defra Survey of Irrigation 2001
Energy MJ/ha 52 2080 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Refridgeration 1294 Canals et al., Env Sci pollut Res 14 (5) 338-344

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable yield t/ha 15.0 1790 26850 Average of Defra 2002-2006

Trimmings t/ha
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 7.8 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.09 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.52 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition kg/ha 0.27
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.2 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 4.55 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.5 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.23 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.022 per kg P kg/ha 0.0 Johnes et a. (1996)
Plastic for recycling or disposal kg/ha 3
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating (no soil fumigation) EIQ/ha 205

Total water l/ha 413,200
Total labour hours/ha 452
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 3.51
Acidification potential kg/ha 4.50
N2O as GWP kg/ha 260.2
Diesel litres/ha 82.9
Energy MJ/ha 16,904
Commodity: Carrot

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed kg/ha 2.48 8 20 2,000,000 seeds/ha @ 805 seeds/g

Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 60 41 2460 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 150 19 2850 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 225 6 1350 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer agricultural salt (Na2O) kg/ha 200 2.5 500 Tzilivakis et al., 2005
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.4 0.62 1 Based on Nix (2006)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 24.8 38 942 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Bed forming Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Bed forming Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Labour hours/ha 0.24 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 315 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Insecticide - lamba-cyhalothrin (EIQ 43.5) kg/ha 0.075 214 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Syngenta (Dovetail)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primcarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Insecticide - lamba-cyhalothrin (EIQ 43.5) kg/ha 0.075 214 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Syngenta (Dovetail)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Insecticide - lamba-cyhalothrin (EIQ 43.5) kg/ha 0.075 214 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Syngenta (Dovetail)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - Linuron (EIQ 40.33) kg/ha 0.7 264 185 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Makhteshim (Alpha Linuron SC)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - Linuron (EIQ 40.33) kg/ha 0.7 264 185 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Makhteshim (Alpha Linuron SC)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - Propaquizafop (EIQ 20.0 ?) kg/ha 0.15 264 40 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 200 Makhteshim (Falcon)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Bayer (Folicur)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Bayer (Folicur)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - metalaxyl-M (EIQ 20.0 ?) kg/ha 0.6 168 101 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000 Syngenta (SL567A)
Harvesting, washing & sorting Labour (grower) hours/ha 20 0.62 12 Nix (2006)
Harvesting, washing & sorting Labour (casual) hours/ha 93.5 0.62 58 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Harvesting, washing & sorting Diesel litres/ha 30 38 1140 modified Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Harvesting, washing & sorting Water litres/ha 500,000 2600 Estimate 50mm/ha & Dalgaard et al. 2001
Washing Water litres/ha 15,000 0 Personal communication, Don Tiffin ADAS (200litres/tonne)
Packaging Carboard boxes kg/ha 480 15 7200 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & BHGS Ltd
Polythene liners kg/ha 36 78 2808 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & BHGS Ltd

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (roots) t/ha 74.8 1460 109179 Defra - BHS (average 2000-2006)
Crop residue (stalks & leaves) t/ha 16.5 Residue index of 0.22 based on HRI data
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 9.0 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.11 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.94 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.52 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposition kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.18 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 7.44 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.6 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.38 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.08 per kg P kg/ha 12.00 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 108.9

Total water l/ha 518,600
Total labour hours/ha 123
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 16.97
Acidification potential kg/ha 6.84
N2O as GWP kg/ha 542.5
Diesel litres/ha 135.5
Energy MJ/ha 25,788
Commodity: Cauliflower

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed kg/ha 0.16 8 1.28 44,000 seeds/ha @ 312 seeds/g

Compost kg/ha 140 2 280 RDL estimate
Propagation trays (plastic) kg/ha 41 78 3187 Plantpak
Drench (cabbage root fly) Insecticide - chlorpyrifos (EIQ 43.5) kg/ha 0.3 214 64.2 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 250 41 10250 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 65 19 1235 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 187 6 1122 RB209 assumes index 1
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0.186 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 64.6 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - trifluralin (EIQ 18.8) kg/ha 1.1 264 290 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Dow AgroSciences (Treflan)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.4 0.62 0.868 Based on Nix (2006)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 24.8 38 942.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 0.5332 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Transplanting Labour (grower) hours/ha 5 0.62 3.1 (rdl guess)
Transplanting Labour (casual) hours/ha 45 0.62 27.9 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Transplanting Diesel hours/ha 20 38 760 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0.186 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 64.6 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - Propachlor (EIQ 15.43) kg/ha 4.32 264 1140.48 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 450 Monsanto (Ramrod Flowable)
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0.186 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primcarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.42 214 89.88 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Insecticide - deltamethrin (EIQ 25.7) kg/ha 0.0075 214 1.605 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 450 Syngenta (Aphox) & Bayer (Decis)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0.186 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 64.6 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - Difenoconazole (EIQ 48.7) kg/ha 0.075 168 12.6 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Syngenta (Plover)
Harvesting Labour (grower) hours/ha 5 0.62 3.1 (rdl guess)
Harvesting Labour (casual) hours/ha 132 0.62 81.84 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 20 38 760 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Irrigation Water litres/ha 500,000 52 2600 Water is estimate, Dalgaard et al. 2001
Cardboard boxes Packaging for curds kg/ha 1203 15 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & BHGS Ltd

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (cauliflower heads) t/ha 13.04 Defra - BHS (average 2000-2006)
Crop residue (stalks & leaves) t/ha 16.6 HI (0.56) calculation based on HRI data
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 37.5 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.44 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 3.93 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.85 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N depositiokg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fertilizer @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.75 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 5.67 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 2.5 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.29 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.065 per kg P kg/ha 4.23 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 111.2

Total water litres/ha 501,700
Total labour hours/ha 142
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 21.63
Acidification potential kg/ha 9.48
N2O as GWP kg/ha 1625.2
Diesel l/ha 103.3
Energy MJ/ha 24,319
Commodity: Lettuce (protected 3 crops/year)

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed kg/ha 0.8 8 6 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07

Peat blocks kg/ha 18480 2 36960
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 207.0 41 8487 RB209 (1985 version) assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphate kg/ha 200.0 19 3800 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 200.0 6 1200 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer magnesium kg/ha 100.0 7 700 RB209 assumes index 2
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Labour hours/ha 10.0 0.62 6 Warwick HRI estimate
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Diesel litres/ha 10.0 38 380 Warwick HRI estimate
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Fumigant - dazomet (EIQ 20?) kg/ha 380.0 100 38000 Pers comms + Pesticide Guide + Certis Basamid
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Polythene kg/ha 400.0 78 31200
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 0.5 0.62 0 Defra HH3606
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 314 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.2 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 6.0 38 227 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Planting Labour hours/ha 50.0 0.62 31 Based on The Organic Farm Management Handbook 2006
Planting Diesel litres/ha 20.0 38 760
Glasshouse construction Labour hours/ha 33.0 0.62 20 Defra HH3606
Glasshouse construction Galvanised steel kg/ha 8333.0 20 166660 Personal comm. Cambridge Glass
Glasshouse construction Glass kg/ha 4167.0 16 66672 Personal comm. Cambridge Glass
Glasshouse construction Plastic kg/ha 30.0 50 1500 Personal comm. Cambridge Glass
Glasshouse construction Concrete kg/ha 6600.0 8 52800 Personal comm. Cambridge Glass
Glasshouse construction Diesel litres/ha 30.0 assumption
Glasshouse maintenence Labour hours/ha 20.0 0.62 12 Defra HH3606
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - iprodione (EIQ 11.0) kg/ha 0.041 168 7 Pesticide survey & BASF Rovral Flow
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 BASF Rovral Flow
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - pirimicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 1.50 214 321 Pesticide survey & Syngenta (Aphox)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - chlorpropham (EIQ 19.3) kg/ha 3.36 168 564 Pesticide Suvey & United Phosphorus Comrade
Spraying Water litres/ha 700
Application slug pellets Labour hours/ha 2.0 0.62 1 Warwick HRI estimate
Application slug pellets Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Application slug pellets Mollusicide - methiocarb (EIQ 15.0?) kg/ha 5.0 214 1070 Pesticide Survey
Harvesting Labour hours/ha 200.0 0.62 124 Based on The Organic Farm Management Handbook 2006
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 20.0 38 760 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Irrigation/fertigation Water litres/ha 2,299,000 Defra HH3606
Irrigation/fertigation Energy MJ/ha 52 11960 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (heads) t/ha 95.2 1058 100722 Defra Horticultural statistics (average 2000-2005)
Crop residue t/ha 69.1 Based on Warwick HRI data
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 31.1 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.37 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 3.25 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 2.16 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposition kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.6 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 5.56 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 2.1 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.28 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.065 per kg P kg/ha 13.0 Johnes et a. (1996)
Plastic for recycling or disposal kg/ha 133 78 10400 Based on this assessment
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating (with soil fumigation) EIQ/ha 7765

EIQ Field Rating (no soil fumigation) EIQ/ha 165
Total water litres/ha 2,300,500
Total labour hours/ha 317
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 27.53
Acidification potential kg/ha 8.50
N2O as GWP kg/ha 1789.6
Diesel litres/ha 101.3
Energy MJ/ha 424,811
Commodity: Narcissi

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed bulbs kg/ha 6500 1.5 9750 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & McCance & Widdowson's (onion!)
Hot water treatment Water litres/ha 100,000 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Hot water treatment Labour hours/ha 2 0.62 1
Hot water treatment Electricity MJ/t 30 672 20160 Adams, 2007
Hot water treatment Fungicide - thiabendazole (EIQ 35.5) kg/ha 0.172 168 29 Personal comms + Frontier Storite for potato
Hot water treatment Fungicide - formaldehyde (EIQ 20.0?) kg/ha 0.063 168 11 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 37.5 41 1538 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 37.5 19 713 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 75 6 450 RB209 assumes index 1
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.4 0.62 1 Based on Nix (2006)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 34.7 38 1319 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Planting & ridging Labour hours/ha 6 0.62 4 Nix (2006)
Planting & ridging Diesel litres/ha 37.6 38 1429 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Roguing Labour hours/ha 20 0.62 12 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - carbendazim (EIQ 56.17) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & BASF Bavistin
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Bayer Folicur
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Bayer Folicur
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - carbendazim (EIQ 56.17) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & BASF Bavistin
Spraying Fungicide - mancozeb (EIQ 14.6) kg/ha 1.2 168 202 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Bayer Folicur
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - azoxystrobin (EIQ 15.2) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Syngenta Amistar
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Bayer Folicur
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - carbendazim (EIQ 56.17) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & BASF Bavistin
Spraying Fungicide - tebuconazole (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & Bayer Folicur
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - carbendazim (EIQ 56.17) kg/ha 0.25 168 42 Pesticide Usage report, personal comm & BASF Bavistin
Spraying Water litres/ha 1000
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - cypermethrin (EIQ 27.3) kg/ha 0.025 214 5 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 200 Nufarm UK Permasect
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - cyanazine (EIQ 19.8) kg/ha 2.1 214 449 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Makhteshim Fortrol
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - glyphosate (EIQ 15.3) kg/ha 0.54 214 116 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Monsanto Roundup
Flower picking Labour hours/ha 194 0.62 120 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Bulb lifting Labour hours/ha 100 0.62 62 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Bulb lifting Diesel litres/ha 55.6 38 2113 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Bulb grading Labour hours/ha 129 0.62 80 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Bulb grading Diesel litres/ha 5 38 190 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Nets kg/ha 100 78

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (bulbs) t/ha 15.0 1500 22500 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Marketable crop (flowers) t/ha
Crop residue (stalks & leaves)(dry weight) t/ha 7.9 3000 23670 Residue index of 0.15 based on Deblonde et al. 1999
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 5.6 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.07 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.59 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.52 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposition kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.1125 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 11.33 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.375 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.58 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.065 per kg P kg/ha 2.44 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 154

Total water litres/ha 107,000
Total labour hours/ha 229
Eutrophication potentia kg/ha 6.41
Acidification potentia kg/ha 9.29
N2O as GWP kg/ha 426.1
Diesel litres/ha 206.3
Energy MJ/ha 41,817
Commodity: Onion

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed seed kg/ha 2.25 8 18 600,000 seeds/ha @ 335 seeds/g

Seed clay for pelleting kg/ha 11
Seed Fungicide - thiabendazole (EIQ 35.5) kg/ha 0.002 214 0 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Seed Fungicide - thiram (EIQ 32.5) kg/ha 0.003 214 1 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 125 41 5125 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 150 19 2850 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 200 6 1200 RB209 assumes index 1
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.4 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 24.8 38 942 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Labour hours/ha 1.8 0.62 1 Based on Nix (2006)
Drilling Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 315 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - pendimethalin (EIQ 29.7) kg/ha 1.2 264 317 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 200 BASF (Claymore)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - cyanazine (EIQ 19.8) kg/ha 0.875 264 231 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Makhteshim (Fortrol)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - cyanazine (EIQ 19.8) kg/ha 0.875 264 231 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Makhteshim (Fortrol)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - dimethomorph (EIQ 24.0) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - mancozeb (EIQ 14.6) kg/ha 1.33 214 285 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 BASF (Invader)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - dimethomorph (EIQ 24.0) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - mancozeb (EIQ 14.6) kg/ha 1.33 214 285 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 BASF (Invader)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - dimethomorph (EIQ 24.0) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - mancozeb (EIQ 14.6) kg/ha 1.33 214 285 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 BASF (Invader)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - dimethomorph (EIQ 24.0) kg/ha 0.15 214 32 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - mancozeb (EIQ 14.6) kg/ha 1.33 214 285 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 BASF (Invader)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - deltamethrin (EIQ 25.7) kg/ha 0.006 214 1 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Bayer (Decis)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - deltamethrin (EIQ 25.7) kg/ha 0.006 214 1 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Bayer (Decis)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Based on Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - deltamethrin (EIQ 25.7) kg/ha 0.006 214 1 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Bayer (Decis)
Harvesting Labour (grower) hours/ha 20 0.62 12 Nix (2006)
Harvesting Labour (casual) hours/ha 20 0.62 12 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 30 38 1140 modified Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drying Electricity 1000 Estimate based on HH3606
Irrigation Water litres/ha 500,000 2600 Estimate 50mm/ha & Dalgaard et al. 2001
Packaging Nets kg/ha 50 78

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (bulbs) t/ha 41.6 1500 62400 Defra - BHS (average 2000-2006)
Crop residue (stalks & leaves)(dry weight) t/ha 7.1 Residue index of 0.17 based on HRI data
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 18.8 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.22 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 1.96 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.42 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N depositio kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.375 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 7.61 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 1.25 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.39 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.065 per kg P kg/ha 9.75 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 140

Total water litres/ha 503,800
Total labour hours/ha 49
Eutrophication potentia kg/ha 19.08
Acidification potentia kg/ha 8.33
N2O as GWP kg/ha 849.6
Diesel litres/ha 138.6
Energy MJ/ha 20,141
Commodity: Strawberry (under polythene)

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Runners / plants kg/ha 1230.0 8 9840 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07

Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 50.0 41 2050 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphate kg/ha 70.0 19 1330 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 150.0 6 900 RB209 assumes index 1
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Labour hours/ha 2.1 0.62 1 Defra HH3606
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 314 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Fumigation Insecticide - chloropicrin (EIQ 36.4) kg/ha 100.0 66.8 6680 Defra HH3606
Seedbed preparation. Subsoil Labour hours/ha 0.4 0.62 0 Defra HH3606
Seedbed preparation. Subsoil Diesel litres/ha 7.8 38 295 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 0.5 0.62 0 Defra HH3606
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 314 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.2 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 6.0 38 227 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Bed raising Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Bed raising Diesel litres/ha 5.7 38 215 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Planting Labour hours/ha 44.3 0.62 27 Defra HH3606
Planting Diesel litres/ha 2.0 38 76
De-runner, de-blossom, thin & trim Labour hours/ha 150.0 0.62 93 Defra HH3606
Grub Diesel litres/ha 5.7 38 215
Grub Labour hours/ha 2.5 0.62 2 Defra HH3606
Polytunnel construction Labour hours/ha 65.3 0.62 40 Defra HH3606
Polytunnel construction Galvanised steel kg/ha 2692.0 20 53,840 Defra HH3607
Polytunnel construction Timber kg/ha 1280.0 16 20,480 Defra HH3608
Polytunnel construction Polythene (clear) kg/ha 952.0 52.4 49,885 Defra HH3607
Polytunnel maintenence Labour hours/ha 20.0 0.62 12 Defra HH3606
Polytunnel removal Labour hours/ha 58.3 0.62 36 Defra HH3606
Lay polythene tape & mulch Labour hours/ha 0.5 0.62 0 Defra HH3606
Lay polythene tape & mulch Polythene (black for mulch) kg/ha 134.0 78 10,452 Defra HH3606
Lay polythene tape & mulch Irrigation tape (polyethene) kg/ha 101 46 4,646 Lampkin et al & T systems
Remove polythene tape & mulch Labour kg/ha 16 0.62 10 Defra HH3606
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - isoxaben (EIQ 20.0?) kg/ha 0.125 264 33 Defra HH3606 & Dow Agro Sciences (Flexidor 125)
Spraying Herbicide - pendimethalin (EIQ 29.7) kg/ha 0.400 265 106 Defra HH3606 & BASF (Stomp 400)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400.0
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - pirimicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.56 214 120 Defra HH3606 & Syngenta (Aphox)
Spraying Insecticide - thiacloprid (EIQ 31.33) kg/ha 0.48 214 103 Defra HH3606 & Bayer (Calypso)
Spraying Insecticide - Bacillus thuringiensis (EIQ 7.9) kg/ha 0.75 214 161 Defra HH3606 & Fargro (Dipel)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Insecticide - Phytoseiulus persimilis
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - myclobutanil (EIQ 33.0) kg/ha 0.09 168 15 Defra HH3606 & Landseer (Systhane)
Spraying Fungicide - fenhexamid (EIQ 11.7) kg/ha 0.75 168 126 Defra HH3606 & Bayer (Teldor)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - kresoxim-methyl (EIQ 11.7) kg/ha 0.15 168 25 Defra HH3606 & Bayer (Stroby)
Spraying Water litres/ha 500 BASF
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - mepanipyrim (EIQ 11.0?) kg/ha 0.306 168 51 Defra HH3606 & Certis (Frupica)
Spraying Water litres/ha 500 BASF
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - azoxystrobin (EIQ 15.2) kg/ha 0.188 168 32 Defra HH3606 & Syngenta (Amistar)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - pirimicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.56 214 120 Defra HH3606 & Syngenta (Aphox)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - myclobutanil (EIQ 33.0) kg/ha 0.09 168 15 Defra HH3606 & Landseer (Systhane)
Spraying Fungicide - fenhexamid (EIQ 11.7) kg/ha 0.75 168 126 Defra HH3606 & Bayer (Teldor)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - mepanipyrim (EIQ 11.0?) kg/ha 0.400 168 67 Defra HH3606 & Certis (Frupica)
Spraying Water litres/ha 500 BASF
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - bupirimate (EIQ 11.0?) kg/ha 0.35 168 59 Defra HH3606 & Landseer (Systhane)
Spraying Fungicide - fenhexamid (EIQ 11.7) kg/ha 0.75 168 126 Defra HH3606 & Bayer (Teldor)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Application slug pellets Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Application slug pellets Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Application slug pellets Mollusicide - methiocarb (EIQ 15.0?) kg/ha 5.0 214 1070 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Harvesting Labour hours/ha 590.0 0.62 366 Defra HH3606
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 20.0 38 760 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Irrigation/fertigation Water litres/ha 2,299,000.0 Defra HH3606
Irrigation/fertigation Energy MJ/ha 52 11960 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Refridgeration

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (strawberries) t/ha 18.0 1058 19044 Defra HH3606

Crop residue (straw) t/ha 2.0 rdl guess
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 7.5 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.09 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.79 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.52 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposition kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.2 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 4.57 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 0.5 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.23 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.0245 per kg P kg/ha 1.7 Johnes et al. (1996)
Plastic for recycling or disposal kg/ha 1,187 64,983 Based on this assessment
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals
EIQ Field Rating (with soil fumigation) EIQ/ha 3818
EIQ Field Rating (no soil fumigation) EIQ/ha 178
Total water l/ha 2,303,200
Total labour hours/ha 954
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 5.64
Acidification potential kg/ha 4.48
N2O as GWP kg/ha 490.8
Diesel 83.2
Energy 178,163
Commodity: Potato

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed seed potatoes kg/ha 3000 3.18 9540 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07
Seed Fungicide - pencycuron (EIQ 22.78) kg/ha 0.24 168 40 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Seed Fungicide - imazalil (EIQ 26.0) kg/ha 0.125 168 21 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 200 41 8200 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 230 19 4370 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 325 6 1950 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer magnesium kg/ha 75 19 1425 RB209 assumes index 1
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.4 0.62 1 Based on Nix (2006)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 34.7 38 1319 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Planting & ridging Labour hours/ha 6 0.62 4 Nix (2006)
Planting & ridging Diesel litres/ha 37.6 38 1429 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - linuron (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 1.176 264 310 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - paraquat (EIQ 31.0) kg/ha 0.277 460 127 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - diquat (EIQ 31.7) kg/ha 0.185 460 85 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Makhteshim (Alpha Linuron) + Syngenta (PDQ)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - pirimicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.28 214 60 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Aphox)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - fluazinam (EIQ 23.3) kg/ha 0.2 168 34 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Syngenta (Shirlan)
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Molluscicide - methiocarb (EIQ 23.3?) kg/ha 0.165 168 28 Bayer (3%)
Flailing Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1
Flailing Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - diquat (EIQ 31.7) kg/ha 0.185 460 85 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.18 214 39 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Bayer (Decis)
Harvesting Labour hours/ha 15 0.62 9 Nix (2006)
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 55.6 38 2113 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Irrigation Water litres/ha 1,200,000 6240 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Irrigation Labour hours/ha 2 0.62 1
Irrigation Electricity MJ/t 63 2816 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Storage Fungicide - chlorpropham (EIQ 19.3) kg/ha 0.81 168 136 Luxan Gro-Stop Fog

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (tubers) t/ha 44.7 3180 142146 Defra - Agriculture in the UK (average 2002-2006)
Crop residue (stalks & leaves)(dry weight) t/ha 7.9 3000 23670 Residue index of 0.15 based on Deblonde et al. 1999
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 30.0 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.35 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 3.14 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.37 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N depositionkg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.6 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 12.86 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 2 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.66 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.08 per kg P kg/ha 18.40 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 134

Total water litres/ha 1,203,100
Total labour hours/ha 32 (Farm management book states 90)
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 33.41
Acidification potential kg/ha 13.84
N2O as GWP kg/ha 1224.1
Diesel litres/ha 234.3
Energy MJ/ha 44,495
Commodity: Sugar beet
Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed seed kg/ha 1.9 250 100,000 seeds/ha @ 52 seeds/g

Seed clay for pelleting kg/ha 2.85
Seed Fungicide - thiram (EIQ 32.5) kg/ha 0.0083 207 2 Tzilivakis et al. 2005
Seed Fungicide - hymexazol (EIQ 32.5) kg/ha 0.015 214 3
Seed Fungicide - imidacloprid (EIQ 34.9) kg/ha 0.099 214 21
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 100 41 4100 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 75 19 1425 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 125 6 750 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer Sodium kg/ha 100 2.5 250 Tzilivakis et al., 2005
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 24.8 38 942 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Labour hours/ha 1.8 0.62 1 Nix (2006)
Drilling Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 315 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - phenmedipham (EIQ 30.2) kg/ha 0.075 207 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - ethofumesate (EIQ 30.0) kg/ha 0.151 264 40 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - desmedipham (EIQ 21.7) kg/ha 0.025 207 5 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 100 Bayer (Betanal Expert)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - phenmedipham (EIQ 30.2) kg/ha 0.075 207 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - ethofumesate (EIQ 30.0) kg/ha 0.151 264 40 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - desmedipham (EIQ 21.7) kg/ha 0.025 207 5 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 100 Bayer (Betanal Expert)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - phenmedipham (EIQ 30.2) kg/ha 0.075 207 16 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - ethofumesate (EIQ 30.0) kg/ha 0.151 264 40 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - desmedipham (EIQ 21.7) kg/ha 0.025 207 5 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 100 Bayer (Betanal Expert)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - metmitron (EIQ 25.0) kg/ha 1.85 196 363 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 240 Barclays (Seismic)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - metmitron (EIQ 25.0) kg/ha 1.85 196 363 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 240 Barclays (Seismic)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - cyproconazole (EIQ 36.63) kg/ha 0.06 168 10 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 300 Bayer (Cabaret)
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.3 0.62 0 Nix (2006)
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - primicarb (EIQ 16.7) kg/ha 0.18 214 39 Pesticide Usage Survey & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400 Bayer (Decis)
Harvesting Labour hours/ha 17.4 0.62 11 Nix (2006)
Harvesting Diesel litres/ha 47.7 38 1813 Tzilivakis et al. 2005
Irrigation Water litres/ha 750,000 3900 Sugarbeet Growers Guide (SBREC 1995) & Daalgard (2001)

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (roots) t/ha 57.0 4200 239400 Defra - BHS (average 2002-2006)
Crop residue (stalks & leaves)(dry weight) t/ha 23.4 4100 95817 Residue index of 0.41 based on HRI data
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 15.0 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.18 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 1.57 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 1.34 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N depositionkg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.3 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 8.27 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 1 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.42 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.08 per kg P kg/ha 6.00 Johnes et al. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 124

Total water l/ha 503,800
Total labour hours/ha 23 (Farm Management Handbook states 33)
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 13.74
Acidification potential kg/ha 8.30
N2O as GWP kg/ha 992.6
Diesel litre/ha 150.7
Energy 17,398
Commodity: Winter wheat

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Seed kg/ha 230 8 1840 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07

Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 220 41 9020 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer phosphate kg/ha 85 19 1615 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 70 6 420 RB209 assumes index 1
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Labour hours/ha 1.19 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Plough (5 furrow) Diesel litres/ha 24.8 38 942 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Labour hours/ha 0.86 0.62 1 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Seedbed preparation. Power harrow Diesel litres/ha 28 38 1064 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Labour (grower) hours/ha 0.24 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Drilling Diesel litres/ha 8.3 38 315 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - fluroxypyr (EIQ 13.33) litres/ha 0.4 264 106 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Herbicide - pendimethalin (EIQ 29.7) kg/ha 0.03 264 8 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Herbicide - picolinafen (EIQ 20.0?) kg/ha 1.31 264 346
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.7 38 65 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Insecticide - cypermethrin (EIQ 27.3) litres/ha 0.25 264 66 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - trifloxystrobin (EIQ 30.9) litres/ha 0.25 214 54 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - triazole litres/ha 0.5 214 107 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Fungicide - trifloxystrobin (EIQ 30.9) litres/ha 0.25 214 54 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Fungicide - triazole litres/ha 0.5 214 107 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying Water litres/ha 400
Spraying Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying Pesticide - primcarb (EIQ 16.7) litres/ha 0.42 214 90 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Mollusicide - methiocarb kg/ha 5 214 1070 Farm Management Handbook 2002/03 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Harvesting - combining Labour (grower) hours/ha 0.44 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Harvesting - combining Diesel litres/ha 20 38 760 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Harvesting - hauling grain Labour (grower) hours/ha 0.44 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Harvesting - hauling grain Diesel litres/ha 10 38 380 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Harvesting - grain drying/cooling Electricity 499 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Grain storage Insecticide - chlorpyrifos-methyl (EIQ 43.5) ) kg/ha 0.036 214 8
Grain loading Labour (grower) hours/ha 0.5 0.62 0
Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Marketable crop (wheat grain) t/ha 7.8 17000 132600 Defra - BHS (average 2000-2006)
Crop residue (straw) t/ha 3.04 17200 52288 HI (0.61) calculation based Farm Management Handbook
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 33.0 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.39 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 3.46 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from ResidueN @ 0.01 per residue N kg/ha 0.23 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposition kg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.66 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 5.97 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 2.2 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.30 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate kg/ha 0.187 Johnes et a. (1996)
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 22.8 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 83.28

Total water litres/ha 2000
Total labour hours/ha 4.2 (Farm Management Handbook states 20)
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 3.23
Acidification potential kg/ha 9.08
N2O as GWP kg/ha 1285.3
CO2 from fertilizer kg/ha 1205
CO2 from diesel kg/ha 287
CO2 from electricity kg/ha 60
Total CO2 kg/ha 1551
Diesel litres/ha 108.8
Energy MJ/ha 19545
Commodity: Lamb Production system is a representation of an average system, based on eleven ewes per ha, yield 16 lambs per year.

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Ewe (2 years old) kg/ha 179 10 1790

Ram kg/ha 7.5 10 75
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 200 41 8200 RB209 assumes high SNS index
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 40 19 760 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 30 6 180 RB209 assumes index 1
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Feed - concentrate embedded energy kg/ha 785 2.5 1963 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield p58
Feed - silage embedded energy kg/ha 2803 2 5606 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield p58
General management Diesel & electricity litres/ha 20 748 Defra - Direct energy use in Agriculture (Adams Warwick HRI 2007)
General management Labour hours/ha 84 0.62 52.08 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Straw - bedding embedded energy kg/ha 6720 1 6720 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Dipping Insecticide - diazinon (EIQ - 43.4) kg/ha 2.44 214 522 Coopers Ectoforc Sheep Dip + Kovach et al.,
Dipping - water litres/ha 61 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)
Water - drinking litres/ha 23425 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)
Water - washing litres/ha 123 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)
Livestock housing (6 weeks) 380 Based on Williams et al. (2006)

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Ewes (culled) kg/ha 179 10 1,790 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Lamb kg/ha 672 10 6,720 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Wool kg/ha 34 0 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Manures kg/ha 4295 10 42,950 ASAE Standards 2003
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 30.0 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.35 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 2.00 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) manures (direct) @ 0.02 N2O-N per kg N excreted kg/ha 9.29 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) manures (indirect) @0.01 N20-N per NH3-N kg/ha 0.18 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from deposition Set value based on 17 kg/ha N deposkg/ha 0.27 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 0.6 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 1.30 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 13.76 2005 IGER National Inventory
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 0.07 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.02 per kg P kg/ha 0.88 Johnes et a. (1996)
Methane kg/ha 133 37 4,921 UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2005
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 61 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 106

Total water litres/ha 23,609
Total labour hours/ha 85
Eutrophication potential kg/ha 18.27
Acidification potential kg/ha 27.26
N2O as GWP kg/ha 3,578
CH4 as GWP kg/ha 3,059
Diesel litres/ha 23.6
Energy MJ/ha 25,268
Commodity: Milk Production system is a representation of an average system, based on two 650 kg cows per ha, yield 7000 litres per year.
Housed on concentrates and silage for 250 days, outside grazing for 115 days

Inputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Dairy cow kg/ha 1300 10 13000 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Fertilizer nitrogen kg/ha 398 41 16318 RB209 assumes high SNS index
Fertilizer phosphorus kg/ha 138 19 2622 RB209 assumes index 1
Fertilizer potassium kg/ha 189 6 1134 RB209 assumes index 1
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Top-dressing Labour hours/ha 0.7 0.62 0.434 Based on Nix (2006)
Top-dressing Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68.4 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Feed (concentrate) embedded energy kg/ha 3480 2.5 8700 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Feed (concentrate) Pesticides (based on wheat) kg/ha 873 Winter wheat inventory
Feed (concentrate) Water (based on wheat) litres/ha 1740 Winter wheat inventory
Feed (concentrate) Diesel litres/ha 47 38 1786 Winter wheat inventory
Feed (concentrate) Labour hours/ha 1.8 0.62 1.116 Winter wheat inventory
Spraying grass Labour hours/ha 0.1 0.62 0 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying grass Diesel litres/ha 1.8 38 68 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
Spraying grass Herbicide - 2,4-DB (EIQ 26.2) kg/ha 0.77 264 203 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying grass Herbicide - linuron (EIQ 40.3) kg/ha 0.105 264 28 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying grass Herbicide - MCPA (EIQ 36.7) kg/ha 0.105 264 28 Farm Management Handbook 2006/07 & Kovach et al. (1992)
Spraying grass Water litres/ha 400 United Phosphorus Alistell
Silage cutting & transport Labour hours/ha 2.7 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Silage cutting & transport Diesel litres/ha 12 38 456 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Straw bedding kg/ha 776 1 776 Williams et al. (2006), Cranfield
General management Diesel & electricity litres/ha 322 12240 Based on Defra - Direct energy use in Agriculture (Adams Warwick HRI 2007)
General management Labour hours/ha 78 0.62 48.36 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Water - drinking litres/ha 73,000 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)
Water - washing litres/ha 20,440 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)
Livestock housing Based on Williams et al. (2006)

Outputs
Rate Total
Category Type Unit Value (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Reference / notes

Milk kg/ha 14000 2.75 38,500 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7 & McCance and Widdowson
Meat kg/ha 163 10 1,630 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7 & McCance and Widdowson
Hide kg/ha 34 10 340 The Farm Management Handbook 2006/7
Slurry kg/ha 81760 10 817,600 ASAE Standards 2003
Nitrate leachate @ 15% of nitrogen input kg/ha 59.7 Based on Silgram et al (2001) & NEAP-N
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from nitrate @0.0075 N20-N per NO3-N kg/ha 0.70 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN @ 0.01 per kg N kg/ha 3.98 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from manures (direct) @ 0.02 N2O-N per kg N excreted kg/ha 7.16 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from manures (indirect) @0.01 N20-N per NH3-N kg/ha 0.78 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from manures (storage) @ 0.005 N2O-N per kg N kg/ha 1.23 2007 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Table 10.21)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) @ 0.03 per kg N kg/ha 1.194 Weidema & Meeusen (2000)
Nitrogen oxide (NO) from fuel @ 0.0549 kg per litre kg/ha 21.21 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Ammonia (NH3) kg/ha 60 based on Defra - Ammonia in the UK
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from fuel @ 0.0028 kg per litre kg/ha 1.08 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI)
Phosphate leachate @ 0.02 per kg P kg/ha 2.76 Johnes et al. (1996)
Methane kg/ha 269 37 9,953 UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2005
Waste plastic packaging kg/ha 3.4 78 265 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Waste paper & card packaging kg/ha 0.74 15 11 Towards sustainable agricultural waste management
Pesticide washings kg/ha 61 Opportunities for reducing water use in agriculture - Thompson (Warwick HRI)

Totals Unit Value

EIQ Field Rating EIQ/ha 74 EIQ 45.75 from concentrate production & EIQ 28.26 from grazing
Total water litres/ha 95,580
Total labour hours/ha 84
AP kg/ha 129.6 Cederberg & Mattsson, 2000 (value 288)
EP kg/ha 63.3
N2O as GWP kg/ha 4,098
CH4 as GWP kg/ha 6,187
Diesel litres/ha 386.4
Energy MJ/ha 45,419
Appendix B (1)

Raw data used for the socio-economic footprint scoring (3-year average) and 13-year,
11-year and 8-year annual linear trend in percent (LINST function) and variation (%cv)
analysis (depending on data availability, nd = no data).
Sector Glass 13-yr av. Veg 13-yr av. Flower 13-yr av. Top F. 13-yr av. Soft F. 11-yr av.
3-yr av. Trend Var. 3-yr av. Trend Var. 3-yr av. Trend Var. 3-yr av. Tren Var. 3-yr av. Trend Var.
Av. Total size (ha) 1.1 -1 44% 59.2 10 46% 10.0 -5 24% 46.0 2 27% 55.4 -6 27%
Turnover of main enterprise (%) 61% 1 17% 26% 5 36% 94% 0 4% 48% -4 20% 10% -10 38%
Gross Output (£/ha) 276154 2 19% 8170 -4 23% 41610 -2 29% 5914 2 12% 4405 -2 24%
Net Output (£/ha) 162726 -1 22% 5322 -5 27% 24837 -2 35% 3211 -2 15% 2670 -4 29%
Variable Costs (£/ha) 113428 9 42% 2847 -1 35% 16773 -1 21% 2703 11 48% 1735 2 37%
Employed Labour (£/ha) 89864 2 18% 2579 -5 29% 15815 -0 31% 1834 -1 18% 1495 -3 30%
Total Fixed Costs (£/ha) 146680 -1 22% 4652 -6 28% 19746 -3 36% 3426 -2 17% 3007 -3 27%
Grower and spouse labour (£/ha) 21494 -2 11% 741 -5 37% 2544 -0 57% 409 -1 18% 343 5 25%
Tenant's type asset av. valuation (£/ha) 169579 -0 14% 3730 -3 20% 29285 -8 70% 5468 2 16% 2712 -5 24%
MII (Management & Investment Income 16047 8 108% 670 41 1258% 5091 1 47% -215 7 69% -337 -16 90%
Net Farm Income (£/ha) 37541 2 41% 1405 -4 44% 7633 1 48% 178 7 164% 6 -18 156%
Gross margin (%) 59% -3 14% 67% -1 11% 60% -1 9% 54% -4 18% 61% -2 14%
Profit margin (%) 5% 5 103% 9% 96 1433% 11% 2 35% -4% 8 68% -8% -20 107%
Profit margin (%) including farmer's labou -3% 16 156% 1% 7 89% 5% 5 126% -11% 5 27% -16% -13 61%
Net income/farm worker 48640 18913 41430 11632 8677
Return on capital (% -MII/tenant type asse 11% 10 117% 18% 112 1984% 16% 8 68% -3% 9 69% -12% -21 105%
Costs of power & machinery per net output (%) 10 -1 20% 14 -2 25% 7 -5 21% 11 -7 33% 13 -7 31%
Cost of employed labour (incl. unpaid) per net ou 34 -1 7% 35 -5 21% 31 -4 19% 35 -4 20% 47 -1 11%
% Farmer of total labour cost 24% -5 24% 25% -2 29% 16% 0 38% 26% 1 39% 23% 10 42%
per farm total labour (£) 102789 2 46% 155946 4 32% 156198 -5 36% 78243 0 25% 82827 -9 34%
per farm farmer & spouse labour (£) 24407 -3 38% 46350 3 56% 26907 -3 61% 20525 2 35% 18878 -1 15%
Purchases (£/ha) 170244 1 17% 4921 -4 22% 20704 -4 32% 4295 3 16% 3248 -1 20%
Subsidies % of Turnover 1% 7 27% 0.5% 7 27% 0.5% 7 27% 0.5% 7 27% 0.5% 7 27%
Subsidies % of NFI 4.4% 0 0% 4.4% 0 0% 4.4% 0 0% 4.4% 0 0% 4.4% 0 0%
Assets (£/ha) 139288 -11 29% 12644 -2 6% 41937 12 32% 17304 1 4% nd
Net Worth (£/ha) 104063 -10 27% 9809 -4 10% 31374 11 29% 14986 1 3% nd
Owner Equity in % 75% 1 2% 77% -1 5% 75% -0 3% 87% -0 1% nd
Total annual labour units/ha 2.619 -14 35% 0.211 -6 17% 0.566 16 44% 0.173 -3 10% 0.173 0 0%
of which: farmer and spouse 0.477 -14 38% 0.038 -13 35% 0.111 4 16% 0.031 -1 6% nd
wholly or mainly unpaid labour 0.080 -17 43% 0.008 -35 88% 0.010 42 123% 0.007 2 13% nd
regular hired labour & manager 1.666 -16 40% 0.116 -3 7% 0.421 19 50% 0.066 -3 15% nd
casual and seasonal 0.397 -3 17% 0.048 -3 32% 0.024 15 61% 0.069 -5 14% nd
% Farmer of total Labour units 18% 1 12% 18% -6 17% 21% -13 33% 18% 2 12% nd
UK area (ha) 800 -3 13% 140970 -3 12% 16631 1 6% 17818 -3 13% 7865 -4 16%
Turnover (£m in UK) 221 1152 692 105 194
Assets/annual labour units (£/ha) 53177 60026 74099 100034 nd
Tenants capital/annual labour units (£/ha) 64742 17710 51745 31611 nd
Purchases (all costs minus labour in secto 136 694 344 77 26
Employed workers in sector 2095 29693 9412 3082 1360
Home production as % of Total Supply 17 -6 25% 81 -1 6% 46 -2 10% 27 -4 18% 54 -2 11%
Appendix B (1) - Horticultural sectors (continued.)
Sector Glass Veg Flower Top F. Soft F.
1990 Holders age ('000 persons)
Under 35 years 0.032 0.011 0.100 0.057 nd
as a proportion of the total % 4% 2% 4% 2% nd
35 - 44 years 0.105 0.104 0.398 0.403 nd
as a proportion of the total % 14% 17% 17% 17% nd
45 - 54 years 0.218 0.128 0.640 0.639 nd
as a proportion of the total % 29% 21% 27% 26% nd
55 - 64 years 0.237 0.192 0.755 0.677 nd
as a proportion of the total % 32% 31% 32% 28% nd
65 years and over 0.154 0.183 0.438 0.644 nd
as a proportion of the total % 21% 30% 19% 27% nd
Total 0.746 0.618 2.331 2.420 nd
2005 Holders age
Under 35 years 0.016 0.023 0.031 0.029 nd
as a proportion of the total % 2% 3% 2% 1% nd
35 - 44 years 0.162 0.133 0.227 0.339 nd
as a proportion of the total % 17% 15% 11% 13% nd
45 - 54 years 0.286 0.194 0.539 0.634 nd
as a proportion of the total % 30% 22% 27% 23% nd
55 - 64 years 0.275 0.286 0.675 0.852 nd
as a proportion of the total % 29% 33% 34% 31% nd
65 years and over 0.217 0.233 0.525 0.856 nd
as a proportion of the total % 23% 27% 26% 32% nd
Total 0.956 0.868 1.996 2.710 nd
%-change <35 years -60% 46% -64% -54% nd
%-change 35-44 years 20% -10% -33% -25% nd
%-change 45-54 years 2% 8% -2% -12% nd
%-change 55-64 years -9% 6% 4% 12% nd
%-change >65 years 10% -9% 40% 19% nd
Under 45 years 19% 18% 13% 14% nd
1990 Agricultural training ('000 persons)
Practical experience only 0.61 0.57 1.75 1.95 nd
as a % of the total 75% 88% 70% 77% nd
Basic training 0.06 0.03 0.29 0.29 nd
as a % of the total 8% 5% 11% 11% nd
Full agricultural training 0.14 0.04 0.46 0.28 nd
as a % of the total 17% 7% 19% 11% nd
Total 0.81 0.64 2.50 2.52 nd
2005 Agricultural training ('000 persons)
Practical experience only 0.70 0.77 1.33 2.12 nd
as a % of the total 65% 86% 55% 74% nd
Basic training 0.10 0.07 0.25 0.21 nd
as a % of the total 10% 8% 10% 7% nd
Full agricultural training 0.28 0.06 0.85 0.54 nd
Full training 2005 as % of all farm workers 26% 7% 35% 19% nd
Total 1.09 0.90 2.42 2.87 nd
%-change Practical experience only -14% -3% -22% -4% nd
%-change Basic training 19% 52% -11% -35% nd
%-change Full agricultural training 52% 0% 88% 66% nd
Level of regional specialisation low high medium high medium
Farmer's share of basket tomato carrot nd apple nd
Share in 1988 48 30 nd 55 nd
Share in 2006 72 45 nd 42 nd
Change in Farmer's share of food basket 50% 19% nd -24% nd
Appendix B (2) - Agricultural sectors
Sector Pot, SB 8-yr av. Wheat 8-yr av. Dairy 8-yr av. Sheep 8-yr av.
3-yr av. Tren Var. 3-yr av. Trend Var. 3-yr av. Tren Var. 3-yr av. Tren Var.
Av. Total size (ha) 205.4 1 7% 223.0 6 16% 92.2 2 5% 159.1 -2 10%
Turnover of main enterprise (%) 20% 3 14% 34% -4 15% 71% -1 4% 33% -6 19%
Gross Output (£/ha) 1373 3 10% 848 1 6% 1883 2 7% 437 4 11%
Net Output (£/ha) 990 4 12% 626 1 7% 1198 3 9% 322 6 17%
Variable Costs (£/ha) 383 1 6% 223 -1 6% 685 1 5% 115 -1 5%
Employed Labour (£/ha) 208 3 7% 93 0 3% 228 0 3% 38 -2 5%
Total Fixed Costs (£/ha) 798 2 7% 525 0 2% 914 1 3% 238 4 11%
Grower and spouse labour (£/ha) 73 4 15% 59 -2 8% 231 4 11% 100 6 16%
Tenant's type asset av. valuation (£/ha) 1599 4 14% 1259 3 16% 2172 2 12% 854 4 14%
MII (Management & Investment Income 121 25 122% 43 93 572% 54 76 370% -15 17 90%
Net Farm Income (£/ha) 192 14 60% 101 8 63% 285 10 35% 84 15 44%
Gross margin (%) 72% 1 3% 74% 0 2% 64% 1 2% 74% 2 6%
Profit margin (%) 14% 11 50% 12% 8 56% 15% 8 29% 19% 12 36%
Profit margin (%) including farmer's labou 9% 23 116% 5% 125 794% 3% 97 455% -4% 21 92%
Net income/farm worker 22982 20740 17481 13074
Return on capital (% -MII/tenant type asse 8% 23 125% 4% 91 582% 3% 75 400% -2% 22 95%
Costs of power & machinery per net output (%) 12 -1 7% 12 1 10% 9 -1 6% 10 -3 10%
Cost of employed labour (incl. unpaid) per net ou 28 -1 7% 25 -2 7% 38 -1 6% 43 -3 12%
% Farmer of total labour cost 26% 1 7% 39% -1 6% 50% 2 5% 72% 2 6%
per farm total labour (£) 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
per farm farmer & spouse labour (£) 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0%
Purchases (£/ha) 974 2 6% 654 -0 3% 1370 1 3% 315 3 9%
Subsidies % of Turnover 13% -2 7% 25% -2 7% 9% 6 21% 41% -3 8%
Subsidies % of NFI 94% 0 0% 213% 0 0% 58% 0 0% 213% 0 0%
Assets (£/ha) 4888 1 7% 5258 2 7% 7089 -1 5% 2843 7 19%
Net Worth (£/ha) 4211 1 6% 4725 2 7% 5834 -1 6% 2657 7 21%
Owner Equity in % 86% -0 2% 90% -0 1% 82% 0 1% 93% 1 2%
Total annual labour units/ha 0.017 -1 4% 0.009 -4 11% 0.029 -2 5% 0.009 -0 6%
of which: farmer and spouse 0.005 1 6% 0.004 -5 14% 0.015 -0 3% 0.007 2 9%
wholly or mainly unpaid labour 0.002 2 10% 0.001 0 5% 0.005 -1 3% 0.001 -3 15%
regular hired labour & manager 0.008 -3 9% 0.003 -5 13% 0.008 -5 12% 0.001 -8 27%
casual and seasonal 0.003 2 9% 0.001 -0 7% 0.001 -0 6% 0.000 -9 30%
% Farmer of total Labour units 29% 2 6% 44% -1 4% 51% 1 4% 73% 2 6%
UK area (ha) 298333 -3 8% 1898000 -1 8% 1386453 1606009
Turnover (£m in UK) 410 1610 2611 702
Assets/annual labour units (£/ha) 281409 560833 241816 303476
Tenants capital/annual labour units (£/ha) 92073 134270 74083 91213
Purchases (all costs minus labour in secto 290 1241 1900 505
Employed workers in sector 5182 17793 40646 15045
Home production as % of Total Supply 78 -1 5% 84 1 2% 103 0 1% 87 -2 9%
Appendix B (2) - Agricultural sectors (continued)
Sector Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep
1990 Holders age ('000 persons)
Under 35 years 1.600 1.300 2.700 6.000
as a proportion of the total % 7% 8% 8% 8%
35 - 44 years 4.500 3.000 7.000 13.000
as a proportion of the total % 20% 18% 21% 17%
45 - 54 years 6.000 4.200 9.600 18.400
as a proportion of the total % 26% 25% 28% 24%
55 - 64 years 6.300 4.300 9.500 20.400
as a proportion of the total % 28% 26% 28% 26%
65 years and over 4.300 3.700 4.900 20.000
as a proportion of the total % 19% 22% 15% 26%
Total 22.700 16.500 33.700 77.800
2005 Holders age
Under 35 years 0.400 0.600 0.700 3.400
as a proportion of the total % 3% 2% 3% 4%
35 - 44 years 1.900 3.400 3.900 11.900
as a proportion of the total % 15% 14% 19% 14%
45 - 54 years 3.000 6.000 5.900 19.000
as a proportion of the total % 24% 24% 28% 23%
55 - 64 years 3.600 7.500 6.200 22.800
as a proportion of the total % 29% 30% 30% 28%
65 years and over 3.600 7.500 4.200 25.400
as a proportion of the total % 29% 30% 20% 31%
Total 12.500 25.000 20.900 82.500
%-change <35 years -55% -70% -58% -47%
%-change 35-44 years -23% -25% -10% -14%
%-change 45-54 years -9% -6% -1% -3%
%-change 55-64 years 4% 15% 5% 5%
%-change >65 years 52% 34% 38% 20%
Under 45 years 18% 16% 22% 19%
1990 Agricultural training ('000 persons)
Practical experience only 13.20 10.20 21.60 57.60
as a % of the total 66% 69% 73% 83%
Basic training 3.20 2.30 4.60 5.50
as a % of the total 16% 16% 15% 8%
Full agricultural training 3.60 2.30 3.50 5.90
as a % of the total 18% 16% 12% 9%
Total 20.00 14.80 29.70 69.00
2005 Agricultural training ('000 persons)
Practical experience only 7.60 14.30 12.90 66.20
as a % of the total 55% 52% 61% 79%
Basic training 1.80 4.20 3.70 8.10
as a % of the total 13% 15% 17% 10%
Full agricultural training 4.40 9.20 4.70 9.40
Full training 2005 as % of all farm workers 32% 33% 22% 11%
Total 13.80 27.70 21.30 83.70
%-change Practical experience only -17% -25% -17% -5%
%-change Basic training -18% -2% 12% 21%
%-change Full agricultural training 77% 114% 87% 31%
Level of regional specialisation medium low low low
Farmer's share of basket potato wheat milk lamb
Share in 1988 24 23 37.6 64.6
Share in 2006 21 15 29.4 47
Change in Farmer's share of food basket -13% -35% -22% -27%
Appendix B (3) - Data set including the weak soft fruit data. The socio-economic
footprint of five horticultural sectors compared to other key sectors of UK agriculture
(including SOFT FRUIT). For reasons why this data were not used see material and
methods.

Sectors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Economic Dimension Glass Veg Flower Top F. Soft F. Pot, SB Wheat Dairy Sheep
Net income per labour unit 10 4 9 2 2 5 4 4 3
Return on capital 16 20 19 6 0 13 11 10 7
Owner Equity (%) 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 9 10
Subsidies (% of turnover) 10 10 10 10 10 7 4 8 0
Percentage of main enterprise (%) 3 7 0 5 9 8 6 2 7
Tenant's type asset av. valuation (£/ha) 15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Profit margin (%) 8 10 13 3 0 15 13 12 8
Net output per £100 cost of power & machinery 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 4
Net output per £100 cost of employed labour 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 3
Sum 77 66 69 43 35 64 56 51 40
Socio-Economic Dimension
Turnover (£m in UK) 1 4 3 0 1 2 6 10 3
Purchases (all costs minus labour in sector £m in 1 4 2 0 0 2 7 10 3
Employed workers in sector 1 7 2 1 0 1 4 10 4
Level of regional distribution (concentrated rated h 3 9 6 9 6 6 3 3 3
Total annual labour units/ha 10 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
Home production as % of total supply 2 8 4 3 5 8 8 10 8
Farmer's share of retail price 10 6 6 6 6 3 2 4 7
Full training as % of all farm workers in sector 7 2 10 5 5 9 9 6 3
Tenants capital/annual labour units (£/ha) 5 1 4 2 2 7 10 6 7
Holders age under 45 years 8 8 6 6 6 8 7 10 8
Sum 47 51 45 34 33 45 57 69 45

Total Economic and Socio-Economic 124 117 114 77 68 110 113 120 86
 Appendix C

Data and calculation sheets for section 3.3.19. A case-study on conventional and organic
cropping

Cabbage Savoy, 2002

Conv Cabbage Savoy 2002 Energy MJ/ha Organic Cabbage Savoy 2002 Energy MJ/ha
Category Value Value Unit Rate Total Category Value Value Unit Rate Total
Total area 11.7 ha Total area 1.9 ha
Basic Inputs sum 20918 Basic Inputs sum 479
Seed 37026 plants/ha 0.008 296 Seed 41668 plants/ha 0.008 333
N 275 kg/ha N 0 kg/ha
P 213 kg/ha 19 4041 P 0 kg/ha
K 213 kg/ha 10 2127 K 0 kg/ha
N Fertiliser
Urea Bb 169 937.9 l/ha 54 9117
Ca Ammo Nitrate 107 426.0 kg/ha 49 5229
Sum Trace Elements 16.9 kg/ha 6.4 108 Sum Trace Elements 22.8 kg/ha 6.4 146
Bittersalz 2.1 Bittersalz 5.4
Cu Oxychlor 0.7 Cu Oxychlor 0.9
Mn Sul Sedema 14.1 Mn Sul Sedema 16.5
Base Fertiliser
00:26:26 818 kg/ha

Cultivations sum 5195 Cultivations sum 6515

plough 30.3 £/ha 1158 plough 30.3 £/ha 1158
harrow 30.8 £/ha 248 harrow 30.8 £/ha 248
planter 290.0 £/ha 1039 planter 290.0 £/ha 1039
8 x spray 250l/h 32.0 £/ha 1560 disc 12.8 £/ha 422
7 x spray 400l/ha 40.3 £/ha 1190 roll 10.4 £/ha 229
harvest labour 488.8 £/ha hoe 17.5 £/ha 229
planting labour 107.3 £/ha 12 x spray 250l/h 48.0 £/ha 2340
weeding/fleece labour 263.0 £/ha 5 x spray 400l/ha 28.8 £/ha 850
harvest labour 66.4 h/ha 365.0 £/ha
planting labour 24.0 h/ha 132.0 £/ha
weeding/fleece labou 44.7 h/ha 246.0 £/ha
Irrigation 49.2 £/ha Irrigation 206.8 £/ha

Sprays ai (active%ai EIQ EIQ sum 1874 Sprays ai (activ %ai EIQ EIQ sum 807
Sum Herbicides 5.5 l/ha 238 1321 Sum Treatments 89.6 1.2 108
Azural glyphosate 0.36 2.55 l/ha 26.7 25 Seamac Seaweed 4.2 l/ha
Treflan trifluralin 0.48 3.00 l/ha 18.8 27 Bactura Bacillus th 0.50 2.0 kg/ha 7.9 8.0
Sum Fungicides 2.8 l/ha 92 254 Dipel Bacillus th 0.50 5.4 kg/ha 7.9 21.3
Bayfidan triadimeno 0.25 2.28 l/ha 40.1 23 Savona 0.02 78.0 l/ha 19.5 30.4
Bravo chlorothalo 0.50 0.30 l/ha 40.3 6
Folicur tebuconaz 0.25 0.19 l/ha 40.3 2 Organomex Gard-S sulphur ga 0.07 6.3 l/ha 45.5 20.1 111 699
Sum Insecticides 1.2 l/ha 199 248
Aphox pirimicarb 0.50 1.13 l/ha 16.7 9
Talstar bifenthrin 0.10 0.12 l/ha 87.8 1
Sum Adjuvants 0.5 l/ha 100 52
Cropspray 0.46 l/ha
Silwet L-77 0.06 l/ha

sum 93 sum 27987 sum 80 sum 7801

Results Results
Marketable crop 10.8 t/ha 5000 53815 Marketable crop 3.1 t/ha 5000 15425
Crop residue 2.4 t/ha Crop residue 0.7 t/ha
Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha
Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha
Phosphate leachate 0.5 kg/ha Phosphate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
EIQ Field use rating 93 rating EIQ Field use rating 80 rating 25% fertility cropping
MJ/t 2600 MJ/t MJ/t 2529 MJ/t 154% 3902
MJ/ha 27987 MJ/ha MJ/ha 7801 MJ/ha 154% 12039
Energy Ratio 1.9 ratio Energy Ratio 2.0 ratio 65% 1.3
Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.20 t/t Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.20 t/t 154% 0.30
Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 2.18 t/ha Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 0.61 t/ha 154% 0.94
CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.87 gha/ha CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.24 gha/ha 154% 0.38
Gross margin (£/ha) -380 £/ha Gross margin (£/ha) -1200 £/ha 75% -900
Celeriac, 2002
Conv Celeriac 2002 Energy MJ/ha Organic Celeriac 2002 Energy MJ/ha
Category Value Value Unit Rate Total Category Value Value Unit Rate Total
Total area 13.6 ha Total area 5.2 ha
Basic Inputs sum 19858 Basic Inputs sum 640
Seed 75479 plants/ha 0.008 604 Seed 54215 plants/ha 0.008 434
N 233 kg/ha 54 12597 N 0 kg/ha
P 162 kg/ha 19 3071 P 0 kg/ha
K 323 kg/ha 10.5 3394 K 0 kg/ha
N Fertiliser
Urea Bb 1296 l/ha

Sum Trace Elements 29.9 kg/ha 6.4 191 Sum Trace Elements 32.3 kg/ha 6.4 207
Bittersalz 4.4 Cu Oxychlor 0.7
Cu Oxychlor 0.4 Mn Sul Sedema 31.6
Mn Sul Sedema 25.0
Base Fertiliser
00:18:36 898 kg/ha

Cultivations sum 9555 Cultivations sum 9710

plough 30.3 £/ha 1158 plough 30.3 £/ha 1158
hoe 17.5 £/ha 229 hoe 17.5 £/ha 229
bedform 90.9 £/ha 952 bedform 90.9 £/ha 952
planter 360.0 £/ha 1039 planter 360.0 £/ha 1039
8 x spray 250l/h 32.0 £/ha 1560 disc 12.8 £/ha 422
3 x spray 400l/ha 17.3 £/ha 510 7.5 x spray 250l/h 30.0 £/ha 1463
harvester 551.6 £/ha 4107 mowing 21.1 £/ha 340
harvest labour 120 h/ha 658.5 £/ha harvester 551.6 £/ha 4107
planting labour 42 h/ha 233.4 £/ha harvest labour 283 h/ha 1556.5 £/ha
weeding/fleece labour planting labour 45 h/ha 244.8 £/ha
weeding/fleece labou 214 h/ha 1179.1 £/ha
Irrigation 73.7 £/ha Irrigation 421.3 £/ha

Sprays ai (activ %ai EIQ EIQ sum 1631 Sprays ai (active%ai EIQ EIQ sum 51
Sum Herbicides 3.7 l/ha 238 871 Sum Treatments 42.6 1.2 51
Afalon linuron 0.45 1.36 l/ha 40.3 25 Seamac Seaweed 20.1 l/ha
Treflan trifluralin 0.48 2.30 l/ha 18.8 21 Savona fatty acids 0.02 19.5 l/ha 19.7 7.7
Sum Fungicides 5.7 l/ha 92 525 Sea Vigour 3.0 l/ha
Plover difenocon 0.25 0.74 l/ha 48.7 9
Bravo chlorothal 0.50 4.97 l/ha 40.3 100
Sum Insecticides 1.0 l/ha 199 203
Aphox pirimicarb 0.50 1.02 l/ha 16.7 9
Sum Adjuvants 0.3 l/ha 100 32
Gex 1664 0.32 l/ha

sum 163 sum 31044 sum 8 sum 10401

Results Results
Marketable crop 5.2 t/ha 3000 15600 Marketable crop 11.0 t/ha 3000 32907
Crop residue 1.1 t/ha Crop residue 2.4 t/ha
Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha
Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha
Phosphate leachate 0.4 kg/ha Phosphate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
EIQ Field use rating 163 rating EIQ Field use rating 8 rating 25% fertility cropping
MJ/t 5970 MJ/t MJ/t 948 MJ/t 149% 1413.6
MJ/ha 31044 MJ/ha MJ/ha 10401 MJ/ha 149% 15505
Energy Ratio 0.5 ratio Energy Ratio 3.2 ratio 67% 2.1
Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.47 t/t Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.07 t/t 149% 0.11
Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 2.42 t/ha Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 0.81 t/ha 149% 1.21
CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.97 gha/ha CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.32 gha/ha 149% 0.48
Gross margin (£/ha) 612 £/ha Gross margin (£/ha) 5785 £/ha 75% 4339
Sugar beet, 2001
Conv Sugar Beet 2001 Energy MJ/ha Organic Sugar Beet 2001 Energy MJ/ha
Category Value Value Unit Rate Total Category Value Value Unit Rate Total
Total area 187.9 ha Total area 9.0 ha
Basic Inputs sum 6219 Basic Inputs sum 159
Seed 1.1 units/ha 13 14 Seed 1.0 units/ha 13 13
N 119 kg/ha N 0 kg/ha
P 19 kg/ha 19 352 P 0 kg/ha
K 42 kg/ha 10.5 445 K 0 kg/ha
N Fertiliser
Urea Bb 65 360.8 l/ha 54 3506
Nitrogen 22 57.0 l/ha 41 911
Sum Trace Elements 137.3 kg/ha 6.4 879 Sum Trace Elements 22.8 kg/ha 6.4 146
Bittersalz 9.9 Mn Sul Sedema 22.8
Cu Oxychlor 0.6
Mn Sul Sedema 11.6
Mn Lenric 12.3 l/ha
Saltex Sodium Sulfate 102.8 l/ha
Base Fertiliser
Chalk Lime 111 kg/ha 1 111
FYM (Cattle) 5.3 t/ha 0 0
Cultivations sum 8387 Cultivations sum 8091
plough 30.3 £/ha 1158 plough 30.3 £/ha 1158
disc 12.8 £/ha 422 disc 12.8 £/ha 422
drill 50.4 £/ha 348 drill 50.4 £/ha 348
spread (FYM) 75.0 £/ha 232 brush hoe 63.0 £/ha 348
10 x spray 250l/h 40.0 £/ha 1950 harrow 22.4 £/ha 248
1 x spray 400l/ha 5.8 £/ha 170 4 x spray 250l/h 16.0 £/ha 780
harvester 174.2 £/ha 4107 2 x mowing 42.2 £/ha 680
harvest labour 0.5 h/ha 2.5 £/ha harvester 174.2 £/ha 4107
weeding/fleece labou 109 h/ha 601.3 £/ha

Sprays ai (active%ai EIQ EIQ sum 4406 Sprays ai (activ%ai EIQ EIQ sum 10
Sum Herbicides 16.8 l/ha 238 3989 Seamac Seaweed 8.0 l/ha 1.2 10
Azural glyphosate 0.36 0.23 l/ha 26.7 2.2
Falcon butroxydim 0.10 0.16 l/ha 18.0 0.3
Fusilade fluazifop-bu 0.25 0.33 l/ha 44.0 3.6
Goltix WG metmitron 0.70 3.95 l/ha 25.0 69.2
Mandolin 160.000 g / 0.16 12.09 l/ha 30.2 58.4
Sum Adjuvants 4.2 l/ha 100 416
Crop Oil 1.63 l/ha
Cropspray 2.35 l/ha
Enhance 0.18 l/ha

sum 134 sum 19012 sum 0 sum 8260

Results Results
Marketable crop 45.9 t/ha 2646 121531 Marketable crop 22.4 t/ha 2646 59404
Crop residue 10.1 t/ha Crop residue 4.9 t/ha
Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha
Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha
Phosphate leachate 0.1 kg/ha Phosphate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
EIQ Field use rating 134 rating EIQ Field use rating 0 rating 25% fertility cropping
MJ/t 414 MJ/t MJ/t 368 MJ/t 153% 564
MJ/ha 19012 MJ/ha MJ/ha 8260 MJ/ha 153% 12650
Energy Ratio 6.4 ratio Energy Ratio 7.2 ratio 65% 4.7
Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.03 t/t Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.03 t/t 153% 0.04
Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 1.48 t/ha Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 0.64 t/ha 153% 0.99
CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.59 gha/ha CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha 0.26 gha/ha 153% 0.39
Gross margin (£/ha) 1218 £/ha Gross margin (£/ha) 326 £/ha 75% 245
Winter wheat, 2005
Conv WW 2005 Energy MJ/ha Organic WW 2005 Energy MJ/ha
Category Value Value Unit Rate Total Category Value Value Unit Rate Total
Total area 258.0 ha Total area 122.0 ha
Basic Inputs sum 7081 Basic Inputs sum 1135
Seed 97 kg/ha 8 776 Seed 128 kg/ha 8 1026
N 140 kg/ha 41 5756 N 0 kg/ha
P 0 kg/ha P 0 kg/ha
K 0 kg/ha K 0 kg/ha
N Fertiliser
Omex 359.9 l/ha

Sum Trace Elements 22.7 kg/ha 6.4 145 Sum Trace Elements 17.1 kg/ha 6.4 109
Bittersalz 2.4 Cu Oxychlor Org 0.7
Cu Oxychlor 0.5 Mn Sulph 16.4
Mn Sul Sedema 19.8
Base Fertiliser 1 treatment in 6 years
Lime 2423 kg/ha 1 404

Cultivations sum 6063 Cultivations sum 5327

plough 30.3 £/ha 1158 plough 30.3 £/ha 1158
power harrow 24.3 £/ha 664 harrow and drill 30.8 £/ha 769
drill 15.0 £/ha 348 roll 12.1 £/ha 229
roll 12.1 £/ha 229 harrow 24.3 £/ha 248
hoe 28.1 £/ha 248 triple harrow 42.3 £/ha 248
spray 110l/h 5.0 £/ha 120 2 x einbock tine 20.3 £/ha 496
10 x spray 220l 24m 58.0 £/ha 1950 3 x spray 220l 24m 17.4 £/ha 585
combine 73.7 £/ha 786 vibroflex culti 17.7 £/ha 248
disc+press 30.7 £/ha 560 combine 68.8 £/ha 786
disc+press 30.7 £/ha 560

Sprays ai (active%ai EIQ EIQ sum 1985 Sprays ai (activ%ai EIQ EIQ sum 7
Sum Herbicides 3.5 l/ha 238 840 Seamac Seaweed 6.2 l/ha 1.2 7
Ally metsulfuro 0.20 0.02 l/ha 16.7 0
Arelon isoproturon 0.50 2.03 l/ha 40.3 41
Javelin diflufenican 0.56 1.02 l/ha 40.3 23
Tomahawk fluroxypyr 0.20 0.46 l/ha 13.3 1
Sum Fungicides 4.1 l/ha 92 375
Bravo chlorothalo 0.50 2.28 l/ha 40.1 46
Folicur tebuconazo 0.25 1.00 l/ha 40.3 10
Prosaro prothiocon 0.25 0.79 l/ha 36.6 7
Sum Insecticides 0.3 l/ha 199 67
Acttelic 50WE pirimiphos- 0.50 0.09 l/ha 71.3 3
Permasect C cypermeth 0.10 0.25 l/ha 27.3 1
Sum Adjuvants 0.7 l/ha 100 68
Activator 90 0.68 l/ha
Sum Growth Reg. 2.7 l/ha 238 635
Chlormequat 90 chlormequat 2.24 l/ha
Guilder 2-chloroethylphosp 0.43 l/ha
sum 132 sum 15128 sum 0 sum 6470

Results Results
Marketable crop 8.1 t/ha price £88 13500 109620 Marketable crop 5.6 t/ha price £202 13500 75236
Crop residue 1.8 t/ha Crop residue 1.2 t/ha
Nitrate leachate 54.0 kg/ha Nitrate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 4.5 kg/ha Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN 0.0 kg/ha
Nitrogen oxide (NO) 1.1 kg/ha Nitrogen oxide (NO) 0.0 kg/ha
Ammonia (NH3) 3.6 kg/ha Ammonia (NH3) 0.0 kg/ha
Phosphate leachate 0.0 kg/ha Phosphate leachate 0.0 kg/ha
EIQ Field use rating 132 rating EIQ Field use rating 0 rating 25% fertility cropping
MJ/t 1863 MJ/t MJ/t 1161 MJ/t 159% 1842
MJ/ha 15128 MJ/ha MJ/ha 6470 MJ/ha 159% 10264
Energy Ratio 7.2 ratio Energy Ratio 11.6 ratio 63% 7.3
Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.15 t/t Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.09 t/t 159% 0.14
Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 1.18 t/ha Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 0.50 t/ha 159% 0.80
CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha) 0.47 gha/ha CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/ha 0.20 gha/ha 159% 0.32
Gross margin (£/ha) 505 £/ha Gross margin (£/ha) 1053 £/ha 75% 790
Organic Red clover fertility crop
Organic Red clover fertility crop Energy MJ/ha
Category Value Value Unit Rate Total
Total area 25% 1 in 4 years for fertility building
Basic Inputs sum 168
Seed 12 kg/ha 14 168
N 0 kg/ha
P 0 kg/ha
K 0 kg/ha

Sum Trace 0.0 kg/ha

Cultivations sum 3516

plough 30.3 £/ha 1158
harrow and drill 30.8 £/ha 769
roll 12.1 £/ha 229
2 x mowing 84.4 £/ha 1360

Sprays ai (active in%ai EIQ EIQ sum 0

l/ha 1.2 0

sum 0 sum 3684

1/3 allocated to the other 3 crops in a 4-year rotation 1228
Results
Marketable crop t/ha
Crop residue t/ha
Nitrate leachate kg/ha
Nitrous oxide (N2O) from FertN kg/ha
Nitrogen oxide (NO) kg/ha
Ammonia (NH3) kg/ha
Phosphate leachate kg/ha
EIQ Field use rating 0 rating
MJ/t MJ/t
MJ/ha 3684 MJ/ha
Energy Ratio ratio
Carbon (CO2 t/t) 0.00 t/t
Carbon (CO2 t/ha) 0.29 t/ha
CO2 Ecological Footprint (gha/h 0.11 gha/ha
Gross margin (£/ha) 0 £/ha