FSE Grower Survey
Summary of responses received
• Questionnaires sent to all participating
farmers - mid-December 2002
• 72% of growers responded
• Responses account for 74% of FSE sites
• Responses evenly spread between
FSE crop types
Growers’ reasons for taking part
in FSE trials
Weighted responses
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Strong belief Support
Specific
in GM crop independent agronomic
benefits
scientific
interest
research
Stand up to Guaranteed
campaign
financial
groups
return
Other
‘Other’ reasons cited for taking
part in FSE trials
• Reduce input costs
• Keep UK agriculture competitive
• Experiences of other FSE growers
• Environmental benefits
• Safer sprays & crops
• Practical interest / first hand experience
• Address sustainability issues
Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance pre-trial
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fully convinced
Convinced in theory need to see it in action
Generally sceptical
No firm views
Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance pre-trial
%
56%
60
50
40
30
20%
19%
20
5%
10
0
Fully convinced
Convinced in theory need to see it in action
Generally sceptical
No firm views
Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance post-trial
%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Convinced
Only partially convinced
Generally sceptical
No firm views
Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance post-trial
%
90%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
7%
3%
10
0
Convinced
Only partially convinced
Generally sceptical
No firm views
Would you use the technology on your farm
if available commercially?
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
No
Undecided
Would you use the technology on your farm
if available commercially?
%
95%
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5%
Yes
No
Undecided
Main advantages of GM herbicide tolerance
vs. non-GM weed control
Weighted responses
250
200
150
100
50
0
Ease & Reduced Improved Control of Reduced
flexibility dependenceefficiency of specific sprays /
on residuals weed
weed cultivations
control
problem
Other
No
significant
advantages
‘Other’ advantages of GMHT cited by growers
• More effective control of weed beet
• Reduced need to spray in ‘borderline’ conditions
• Ability to compete with world prices & costs
• Control of resistant blackgrass in beet crops
• Minimum tillage reduces soil erosion
• Ability to control broad-leaved weeds at a level
acceptable to both farmer and environmentalist
• Ability to spray later encourages stronger crop
establishment
Drawbacks cited by growers
% of responses
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
None
No
Problems
response controlling
specific
weeds
Variety
issue
Public / Campaign Pricing /
market
groups technology
acceptance
access
issues
Specific drawbacks cited by growers
• Over-dependency on one or two herbicides
• What price the seed + technology package will be?
• Effectiveness of later applications on blackgrass
control
• Need earlier-maturing maize varieties further north
• Sending harvested crop to landfill - what a waste!
• Government delays and mixed signals
• Increased burden of paperwork / IP considerations
• Public / market acceptance of GM crops and foods
• Opposition of minority interest groups
Experience of growing crops in
line with SCIMAC guidelines
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Very straightforward
Fairly straightforward Not very straightforward Much too complicated
Experience of growing crops in
line with SCIMAC guidelines
%
60
54%
50
40%
40
30
20
10
3%
3%
0
Very straightforward
Fairly straightforward Not very straightforward Much too complicated
Comparison of SCIMAC guidelines
vs. normal farming practice
% of responses
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very similar
More record-keeping Increased practical More demanding due
issues
to IP & co-existence
issues
Growers’ experience of the audit process
% of responses
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
In line with other
audits
Helpful
Sufficient
feedback
Time-consuming /
complicated
Pointless
Effective basis for co-existence?
(1) on own farm
%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
Yes, with modification
No
Unsure
Effective basis for co-existence?
(1) on own farm
%
75%
80
70
60
50
40
22%
30
20
3%
10
0
Yes
Yes, with modification
No
Unsure
Effective basis for co-existence?
(2) between neighbouring farms
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Yes
Yes, with modification
No
Unsure
Effective basis for co-existence?
(2) between neighbouring farms
%
60%
60
50
40
31%
30
20
8%
10
1%
0
Yes
Yes, with modification
No
Unsure
Improvements to the guidelines
suggested by growers (1)
• Deliver consensus on separation distances /
minimum threshold levels
• SCIMAC ‘licensing’ of individual farms
• Clarify provision of information to beekeepers
• Review timing & basis for contacting neighbours
• Should be briefer & simpler - need ‘checklist’ of
requirements
• More flexibility required for post-harvest oilseed
rape volunteer control
Improvements to the guidelines
suggested by growers (2)
• Guidelines must account for regional variations
(eg timing of planting / cultivations / harvesting)
• Keep paperwork to a minimum - consider electronic
recording and transfer of information
• Align audit process with assurance schemes
• Advice on practical measures to meet requirements
• Reduce overkill - eg modern seed drills can prevent
spillage without clean down between fields
• Align record-keeping requirements with existing
on-farm systems
Growers’ experience of local response
(1) before the trial
% of responses
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hostile/opposed
Concerned,
seeking
reassurance
Questioning, Understanding/ Not interested or
wanting more info Supportive
concerned
Growers’ experience of local response
(2) after the trial
% of responses
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hostile/opposed
Concerned,
seeking
reassurance
Questioning, Understanding/ Not interested or
wanting more info Supportive
concerned