FSE Grower Survey Summary of responses received

1. 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

2. Growers’ reasons for taking part in FSE trials Weighted responses

3. ‘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

4. Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance pre-trial %

5. Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance pre-trial % 56% 20% 19% 5%

6. Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance post-trial %

7. Attitude towards GM herbicide tolerance post-trial % 90% 7% 3%

8. Would you use the technology on your farm if available commercially? %

9. Would you use the technology on your farm if available commercially? % 95% 5%

10. Main advantages of GM herbicide tolerance vs. non-GM weed control Weighted responses

11. ‘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

12. Drawbacks cited by growers % of responses

13. 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

14. Experience of growing crops in line with SCIMAC guidelines %

15. Experience of growing crops in line with SCIMAC guidelines % 54% 40% 3% 3%

16. Comparison of SCIMAC guidelines vs. normal farming practice % of responses

17. Growers’ experience of the audit process % of responses

18. Effective basis for co-existence? (1) on own farm %

19. Effective basis for co-existence? (1) on own farm % 75% 22% 3%

20. Effective basis for co-existence? (2) between neighbouring farms %

21. Effective basis for co-existence? (2) between neighbouring farms % 60% 31% 8% 1%

22. 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

23. 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

24. Growers’ experience of local response (1) before the trial % of responses

25. Growers’ experience of local response (2) after the trial % of responses