General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9955_WU0… · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 25

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code WU0123

2. Project title

Identification and knowledge transfer of novel and emerging technology with the potential to improve water use efficiency within English and Welsh agriculture

3. Contractororganisation(s)

School of Life SciencesUniversity of WarwickWellesbourneWarwickCV35 9EF

54. Total Defra project costs £ (agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 June 2009

end date................. 30 November 2009


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Irrigated agriculture and horticulture represents a small but significant component of land use in England and Wales, in terms of production, value and rural employment. Yet despite its importance to the rural economy, the sustainability of production is under threat due to rising costs, increased competition for water from other sectors, the burden of environmental legislation and longer term threat of climate change. The aim of this study was to identify novel and emerging technologies with the potential to improve water efficiency in English and Welsh agriculture. The research was not constrained to UK evidence but sought to identify examples of technologies being promoted and developed internationally, and to assess the extent to which their uptake might be relevant to a humid climate.

The research focussed on four sectors, (i) livestock production, (ii) outdoor irrigated cropping, including crops grown under polytunnels, (iii) protected (glasshouse) cropping, and (iv) hardy nursery stock. These were developed from those used in previous Defra projects (WU0101 and WU102) and capture the majority of agricultural and horticultural water abstraction in the UK. The specific objectives were (i) to identify and review novel technologies which have the potential to improve water efficiency in agriculture, (ii) to promote knowledge transfer of novel water saving technologies in agriculture, and (iii) to identify and review emerging technologies For Objective 1, the research showed that there was potential for water savings in agriculture, mainly through stimulating the uptake of best [and better] practice, even without further technical innovation. Technologies that have not been widely adopted were reviewed, including water harvesting and water recycling techniques, innovations in soil moisture sensing, advances in micro (drip) irrigation, the use of mulches and high flow (winter storage) reservoirs. Sources of information included peer-review and grey literature, in addition to personal communication and interviews with a range of stakeholders. The outputs from this objective included a report for each of the four sectors highlighting areas of water use (hydrological pathways) and opportunities for saving water, including comparison with benchmark figures for industry best practice. These individual reports are presented as Annex 1 and provide the detail on the specific areas, scale and opportunities for water saving within each sector.

For Objective 2, case studies were produced to highlight examples of uptake of novel water saving technologies. The material was obtained through interviews and farm visits. The four case studies included (i) irrigated field vegetables and salads in W. Sussex, (ii) irrigated potatoes in Lincolnshire, (iii) protected soft fruit in Hampshire, and (iv) hardy nursery stock production in Lincolnshire. The individual case studies are presented as Annex 2 and drafted in a style suitable for knowledge transfer by Farming Futures and other organisations (e.g. NFU, AHDB, UKIA, EA) to disseminate on-farm water saving ideas and demonstration of novel technologies


in agriculture.

For Objective 3, emerging technologies were identified and their UK suitability (including barriers to uptake) assessed using an electronic Delphi-type iteration process. In total, 107 experts were approached; 27 respondents, from different countries and backgrounds (farming, government, research, consulting) ultimately joined the panel. The process was intended to be conducted over two rounds, but unfortunately due to low levels of uptake/participation, only one round was completed. In this, respondents were asked for information on the methods and water sources used for irrigation, new technologies being developed and promoted, the barriers and stimuli to uptake of novel/new technologies, and future concerns regarding water resources for agriculture.

From the analysis, 11 risks were identified, with the greatest concern identified by a third of UK respondents (50% of USA and 25% of Australian) being limited water supplies. Nearly a quarter (22%) of UK respondents also identified water regulation processes (abstraction licensing and water allocation policies) as being of significant concern. Similarly, 11 water-related stimuli were identified that might provide scope for promoting novel water saving technologies. For UK and Australia, water abstraction restrictions were identified as being the most significant stimuli to encourage uptake of water saving technologies, since restrictions impact on the capacity of a farm to deliver continuous supplies of premium grade produce demanded by the major multiples. Other significant factors included improved economics (better financial returns by farmers) and the cost of water. However, continued long-term instability and fluctuation in crop prices will mean that investments in water saving technologies are highly sensitive to underlying market conditions. The final stage in the analysis involved identifying and assessing the opportunities for developing novel and emerging water saving technologies. These were focussed on specific aspects of water management, including measures to improve farmers’ technical understanding of the issues, improve equipment performance and support better management practices. In the UK, the main areas considered to provide an opportunity included those to support improved irrigation scheduling, and better soil moisture and equipment performance monitoring, preferably in real-time. There is of course always scope to use less water and manage it better, making the maximum use of soil moisture and rainfall, knowing precisely where and when irrigation does have to be applied, and then applying it accurately and uniformly, the fundamental steps in the ‘pathway to efficiency’. Introducing new technologies and management practices developed in more arid countries, together with efforts to bring the average nearer to the best (benchmarking) could also provide the keys to achieving better resource efficiency in the UK and hence ‘more crop per drop’. However, the potential for novel or new technologies to ‘save water’ needs to be considered alongside measures to make ‘better use of water’ since UK farmers’ concepts of water efficiency are linked to maximising the farms’ economic productivity rather than saving water per se, except perhaps when their own allocated resources may be inadequate.

Finally, the barriers and enablers to water saving technology uptake were identified. Barriers include the very high degree of short to medium term uncertainty in agricultural policy and markets, inflexibility in the abstraction licensing regime which may limit the potential for water trading and allocation of water to high value cropping, and poor availability of finance and investment in research and technology development. Technology enablers include mechanisms and initiatives to promote improved resource efficiency (notably water and energy), supporting education and knowledge transfer, investments, incentives, building capacity in the agriculture sector and governance systems, and tax breaks, for example capital allowance schemes, to invest in new technologies.

The study concluded that there is no single novel technique that will reduce water use significantly in any one of the identified sectors. Many of the approaches proposed are based around improved and better water management. Maximising the effective use of rainfall, reducing losses and leakage (through appropriate monitoring and recording), harvesting high flows via on-farm storage and refining processing and cleaning operations to minimise water use and costs appear to be the most sensible options.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or


Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

1. Background and Introduction

Irrigated agriculture and horticulture represents a small but significant component of land use in England and Wales, in terms of production, value and rural employment (Leathes et al., 2008). In a dry year, about 150 000 ha are irrigated supplying the UK food market with substantial quantities of high-quality vegetables and horticultural produce. Irrigation is concentrated on high-value crops which do not receive European subsidy support yet it delivers substantial economic benefits. In East Anglia alone, irrigation supports 50000 livelihoods and contributes over £3 billion annually to the region’s economy. This excludes the additional benefits beyond the farm-gate where many businesses provide equipment and farm supplies, post-harvest processing and packaging, marketing, transport, and distribution services related to irrigated production.

Despite its importance to the rural economy, the sustainability of irrigated production is under threat, due to competition from other sectors (notably public supply), combined with new legislation to achieve greater environmental protection. There are also concerns regarding water reliability, as the majority of catchments in which production is concentrated are defined by the Environment Agency (EA) as being either over-abstracted or over-licensed during low-flow periods. Whilst agriculture faces increasing uncertainty regarding water availability, the underlying demand for irrigation continues to grow, driven by supermarket demands for premium quality continuous supplies of produce. Taking into account the annual variation in summer weather, the total volume of water applied each year in England is growing at an underlying rate of 2.1% per annum; similarly, the total area irrigated is growing at a rate of 0.9% per annum (Weatherhead, 2006). These figures confirm that water is increasingly concentrated on high value crops, such as potatoes, horticulture (notably salads) and soft fruit (strawberries), and that these crops are receiving greater application depths. Irrigation abstractors are also under public and regulatory pressure to demonstrate more efficient use of water. Supermarkets are exerting pressure through their grower protocols (e.g. Tesco’s Natures Choice) and water regulations require farmers to demonstrate efficiency as a condition of licence renewal. Clearly, without secure water supplies many farms and agri-businesses would simply not survive; water scarcity would force a shift in land use away from intensive irrigated cropping to low-input cereal production, with significant adverse impacts for rural employment and economic productivity.

It is within this context of the increasing importance of water for food production and food security that this study was commissioned – to identify novel and emerging technologies with the potential to improve water use efficiency within English and Welsh agriculture. Since many of the innovations in irrigation production stem from more arid environments, the study was not constrained to the UK but sought to identify opportunities for new and emerging technologies developed and being promoted internationally, and to assess the extent to which their uptake might be relevant to a humid climate.

2. Research aims and objectives

The aim of this project was to identify ‘novel’ and ‘emerging’ technologies that have the potential to significantly improve water use efficiency within the agricultural sector in England and Wales. The project aimed to identify the technical, economic and social barriers to adoption, and to conduct knowledge transfer activities to promote wider industry uptake of the most promising technologies. The project focussed on four sectors in which water use is considered most significant, namely (i) livestock


production, (ii) outdoor irrigated cropping, including crops grown under polytunnels, (iii) protected (glasshouse) cropping, and (iv) hardy nursery stock. These categories were developed from those initially used within the Defra WU0101 (Thompson et al., 2007) and WU102 (King et al., 2006) projects and capture the majority of agricultural and horticultural water abstraction in the UK.

The specific objectives were:

1. To identify and review novel technologies which have the potential to improve water use efficiency in agriculture ;

2. To promote knowledge transfer of novel water saving technologies in agriculture, and;

3. To identify and review emerging technologies which have the potential to improve water use efficiency in agriculture.

‘Novel’ technologies specifically referred to those that are currently in use in English and Welsh agriculture but have not been taken up more widely. ‘Emerging’ technologies refer to those that are not currently used within English and Welsh agriculture, but are either being used overseas, or are completely new (i.e. under development).

3. Outline methodology and approachesA summary of the research approaches undertaken to complete each objective is given below.

3.1 To identify and review novel technologies which have the potential to improve water use efficiency in agriculture (Objective 1)

There is potential for significant water savings in agriculture, through stimulating the uptake of best [and better] practice, even without further technical innovation (Thompson et al., 2007). Novel water saving technologies that have not been adopted widely in England and Wales were identified. This includes for example, reviewing potential for more widespread use of water harvesting techniques, water recycling, soil moisture sensing, micro (drip) irrigation, the use of mulches and high flow (winter storage) reservoirs.

Sources of information included peer-reviewed papers and grey literature identified via internet and bibliographic (university library) searches, in addition to personal communication with a broad range of organisations. Information sources included (i) details from annual Environment Agency Water Efficiency Awards, (ii) Envirowise (which deals with water efficient technologies eligible for % Enhanced First-Year Capital Allowances), (iii) the UK Irrigation Association (UKIA) which represents all aspects of irrigation in the UK including agriculture, horticulture, golf, amenity, sports surfaces and landscaping, and (iv) the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) which aims to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of agriculture and horticulture in the UK through levy income. Research projects that related to water use were also identified (v) Regional Development Agencies (RDAs (fund initiatives targeted at water use efficiency (e.g. Knox et al. (2007) and Weatherhead et al., 2008). In addition, innovative farmers and growers were identified through articles in the trade press, existing industry links and via the UKIA, and approached for information.

The outputs from this stage included a report for each sector highlighting the areas of water use and opportunities for saving water, including (where available), comparison with benchmark figures for industry best practice (Annex 1).

3.2 To promote knowledge transfer of relevant novel water saving technologies in agriculture (Objective 2)

Knowledge transfer of novel technologies to farmers was undertaken by producing a number of sector specific water-saving case studies. The material was obtained through farmer interviews and farm visits. The case studies are suitable for use by Farming Futures and others (e.g. NFU, AHDB sector divisions, UKIA, EA, CLA) to disseminate on-farm water saving ideas and the demonstration of novel technologies in agriculture.

The outputs from this stage included a report summarising each case study (Annex 2).


3.3 To identify and review emerging technologies which have the potential to improve water use efficiency in agriculture (Objective 3)

Emerging technologies were identified and their UK suitability (including barriers to uptake) assessed using an electronic Delphi-type iteration process. This relies on a panel of experts to reach consensus in a qualitative sense (Kaynak et al., 1994) without actually meeting face to face (Feret and Marcinek, 1999). The method facilitates the exchange of information and ideas by enabling each participant to have an equal input, preventing bias caused by position, status or dominant personalities. Respondents can speculate individually and then reach a consensus collectively. Four key criteria characterise the Delphi method (anonymity to remove social pressures; iteration over a number of rounds to enable panel members to review and change forecasts; controlled feedback with each iteration where panellists receive a copy of the synthesised responses to allow them to review their previous forecasts and assumptions based on the group responses; and statistical aggregation to measure the level of consensus reached).

Leading experts in agricultural and horticultural water use were invited to form the panel, including representatives from the UK Irrigation Association (UKIA), AHDB sector divisions (HGCA, EBLEX, Horticultural Development Company, DairyCo, BPEX and the Potato Council), farming organisations (NFU, CLA and Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE); research organisations (Warwick HRI, East Malling Research, Cranfield University) and Envirowise. These experts were also asked to suggest suitable additional organisations (including international) to join the panel and contribute to the process, which was conducted electronically (via internet) and was to involve two rounds.

In Round 1, panellists were asked to suggest potential water-saving technologies (novel and emerging) for English and Welsh agriculture in the short term (i.e. up to 2020) and to cite potential barriers to uptake. Panellists were asked to provide opinion on equivalent sector categories (i.e. livestock, irrigated outdoor crops, glasshouse edibles and hardy nursery stock) from overseas regions to identify regions most likely to yield suitable technologies for technology transfer to UK conditions. Priorities for stimulating uptake of water saving technologies that may become commercially viable in the longer term (2050s) were identified. The panellists were then to be sent a feedback document, describing the technologies incorporating their views. Round 2 was to be informed by Round 1 with panellists asked to comment on specific technologies (e.g. strengths and weaknesses). They were to be asked to rate the potential effectiveness of them using a simple scale (low, medium, high). Effectiveness included the potential for water reduction, the need for water reduction, and economic implications (affordability). Panellists were then to be sent a feedback document. Emerging technologies included, for example, infrared thermography (IRT) currently used in arid regions, sub-surface buried drip irrigation (currently practiced in Israel), water recirculation systems (used in the Netherlands), ebb and flood irrigation systems (used in Australia) and deficit and partial root drying (used in the US and Australia).

The outputs from this exercise were incorporated into the sector study reports (Annex 1), and used to inform the project conclusions and identify opportunities for further research (Section 5).

4. Results and research outputs

The main outputs from the project included:

(i) A technical report exploring novel technologies with a high water saving potential within each of the four sectors (livestock, outdoor irrigated cropping, protected cropping and HNS). The report is presented as Annex 1 and a summary of the key findings for each sector summarised below;

(ii) A report summarising the four water-saving case studies, presented as Annex 2 to this report. These are in a format ready for knowledge transfer and wider dissemination, and;

(iii) A final report summarising the project approach, key findings, knowledge gaps and recommendations on for government investment/support to stimulate wider uptake of agricultural water use efficiency technology within England and Wales (SID Report).

A summary of the results from Annex 1 and Annex 2 is given below.


4.1 Novel water saving technologies in agriculture (sector analyses)

4.11 Livestock

The livestock sector covers cattle (dairy and beef), sheep, pigs and poultry. King et al. (2006) conducted a baseline assessment of agricultural water use in England and Wales, and estimated total on-farm water abstraction to be in excess of 300 million m3 year-1. Livestock rearing accounted for 119 million m3. Cattle use the most water with a total requirement of approximately 82 million m3 followed by sheep (17 million m3) poultry (12 million m3) and pigs (c.8 million m3). Although direct water abstractions for agriculture are approximately equally divided between livestock and crop production, livestock farming is focussed in areas where there is relatively high rainfall and there is therefore less urgency to reduce water use. However, wastage still results in extra costs and in general farmers seem to be increasingly aware of water efficiency and water saving practices. A water efficiency benchmark for the dairy sector developed by DairyUK showed that with best practice, 0.5 litres water could be used per litre of milk produced but at present, the average is 1.3 litres water used per litre milk. If this was reduced to the benchmark figure, approximately 5.6 billion litres water would be saved annually (Dairy Supply Chain Forum, 2008). Possible water use pathways are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Possible water use pathways in livestock production.

Most water used in livestock farming is for animal drinking, with supplies provided in troughs or through other drinking devices or from canals, streams, dew ponds and other natural sources, where access has to be planned carefully to avoid environmental damage, soil compaction or faecal contamination. Thompson et al. (2007) concluded that there was little scope for savings. However, apart from taking care to manage drinking systems carefully and repair leaking pipes and clear blockages, the project has identified a number of drinking devices, for pigs in particular, that may reduce water use by as much as 40%.

Although less water is used overall for farm washing procedures, this has been identified as one opportunity for water saving as it accounts for 20% of the water used for dairy cows (Thompson et al., 2007). Savings can be achieved by changing management practices and recommendations have been made in the UK (DairyCo, 2009a) and overseas (DairyAustralia). Most of these recommendations require relatively simple changes in practice. The other area where there is potential for water saving is in the dairy parlour, some of which is associated with washing out the plant and again a number of recommendations, based mainly on management practices, have been made by DairyCo (2009a) and others. Guidelines to save water and reduce wastage on livestock farms include:

Regular maintenance of existing systems and equipment to ensure efficient operation

Using meters to monitor water usage

Checking for, and repair leaks

Isolating and emptying troughs when not in use

Using bowser tanks or pump from a nearby source to supply water to troughs. This reduces the length of pipework and associated leak risks


Adjusting ball valves on troughs to prevent overflow

Using smaller troughs that require less water for cleaning

Using nose or plate operated drinkers instead of troughs to ensure fresh water and to reduce the volume of water needed for cleaning

Changing to drinkers that reduce spillage e.g. bite ball valves, nipple drinkers, Arato-V drinkers

Fitting drinkers with catch basins to retain overflow and make them suitable for smaller animals

Fitting drinkers with a guide rail to ensure that animals approach head on. This prevents water seeping from the side of the animal’s mouth

Pre-soaking parlours, yards and housing to loosen dirt before washing

Scraping yards to remove dirt before washing

High pressure hoses speed up cleaning but use more water

Using high-pressure bulk tank washing systems to save water

Using Lactivate, a new enzyme based method from Ecolab, to clean milking machines and reduce water use

Arranging for alternate day milk collection to reduce bulk tank cleaning

Covering yards to prevent rainwater adding to the volume of slurry

Harvesting rainfall from roofs for animal drinking and washing

Recycling water where possible e.g. milk cooling water can be re-used for animal drinking or washing

4.12 Outdoor irrigated cropping

This sector covers field vegetables grown in the open, including root crops (e.g. carrot), brassicas (e.g. cabbage), legumes (e.g. beans) and other speciality crops (e.g. asparagus, lettuce). Within field vegetables, the most important irrigated crops include carrot, onion, lettuce, and baby leaf salads. These are all dependent on supplemental irrigation to maximise yield and quality. A significant proportion of agricultural and horticultural holdings involved in field vegetable production, both large and small scale, traditional and organic, are dependent on water to provide the high quality continuous supplies of premium quality produce demanded by the major multiples (supermarkets), processors, and retailers. Restrictions in the availability and reliability of water supplies for field vegetable irrigation can have major consequences on crop yield, quality and farm income (Knox et al., 2000). For other field vegetables, such as brassicas and legumes, irrigation is also important, but not so extensive, as these are grown on more moisture-retentive soils, are less prone to drought stress, and have quality criteria that are less sensitive to water stress (Knox et al., 2010).

Water use in the field vegetable sector occurs for four main purposes: crop irrigation, crop processing, climate control and other (spraying, equipment washing) uses (Figure 2). The purpose for which the majority of water is abstracted and used is for crop irrigation.

King et al. (2006) conducted a baseline assessment of agricultural water use in England and Wales, and estimated total on-farm water abstraction to be in excess of 300 million m3 year-1. Almost half (128 M m3) was used for field-scale agricultural (and horticultural) spray irrigation. Most UK field vegetable irrigation is still applied through overhead irrigation methods, mostly hosereel systems fitted with rainguns (Weatherhead, 2006). These systems are widely acknowledged to be inaccurate and inefficient in water and energy use. However, they are robust, versatile, and fit well onto typical UK mechanised arable farms. They cope particularly well with the flexibility required by rotational cropping patterns (e.g. following potatoes around a farm with non-standard field sizes). Despite the criticisms there is surprisingly little hard data on the efficiency of water application from overhead systems under UK conditions. Evaporation from foliage and the soil surface could be reduced by minimizing the area wetted, e.g. by irrigating only between alternate rows on a bed. This would be possible with precision hose-reel-booms and linear move systems, using drop tubes or sub-canopy sprays, which also avoid aerial evaporation and drift losses. The higher application rates could be a problem on some soils, necessitating the use of special tillage or small basins. Some research and product development has already been undertaken in the USA along these lines, with application efficiencies of over 95%


claimed (Hoffman and Martin, 1995), and would be worth investigating further for use under UK conditions.

Figure 2 Possible water use pathways in outdoor irrigated cropping production.

Another alternative is to switch application technology, from overhead spray to localised micro or trickle irrigation. Trickle is often considered to be the irrigation of the future – accurate, energy efficient, easily automated and producing high yielding, good quality produce. Its potential to save water is particularly attractive when water is scarce or expensive. Trickle irrigation can potentially use less water than spray irrigation. However, the crop water use (transpiration) from a fully irrigated crop is similar whatever the method of water application. Using trickle, however, spray evaporation, wind drift, and leaf interception are avoided, and soil evaporation is reduced. As a static (solid-set) system, it allows smaller and more timely applications, and is easier to automate than portable or moving overhead irrigation systems. This permits more accurate scheduling. Potentially, trickle can also give a high uniformity of application, reducing the need to over-irrigate to compensate for dry spots.

The practical feasibility for reducing irrigation water demand through a reduction of soil evaporation by the use of mulches on field vegetable crops appears limited.

Modifications to soil structure, changes in application technology and better in-field management can help reduce the risks of runoff and thereby help save water. Practices that encourage local retention of water on the soil surface will reduce surface runoff rates. Blocking furrows (“furrow diking” in the USA) has been advocated in semi-arid agriculture for many years (e.g. Dagg and Macartney, 1968), but more recently the technique has been tried with supplementary irrigation in more temperate environments. For example, Nuti et al. (2009) evaluated the use of furrow diking for supplementary irrigated cotton in Georgia, USA. It was shown to reduce irrigation requirements and improved yield and net returns when rainfall is periodic and drought is not severe. Special rollers are now available in the UK to maximise water retention. For example, the “Aqueel” creates multi small depressions (up to 200,000/ha) on raised beds, ridges or over the whole soil surface and these act as mini reservoirs each holding about a litre of water. They reduce runoff and aid slow water percolation through the soil (ADAS, 2007). Patrick et al. (2007) estimated that surface run-off could be reduced by 95% on some soils using this technique.

Matching irrigation application rates to soil infiltration characteristics is fundamental to system design. Irrigation technologies for very low application rate may be useful in particular problem soils. Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) effectively eliminates surface runoff as water is applied within the root zone. This however, does not automatically result in water savings as drainage may be substituted for surface runoff if scheduling is poor. However, most irrigation in the UK takes place on light soils with moderate to high infiltration capacities and application rates are rarely a problem. Use of overhead irrigation systems with small droplet sizes, such as micro-sprinklers, can reduce runoff and the risk of capping of fine textured soils (which can lead to runoff from both irrigation and rainfall). Water saving potential exists through better control on irrigation equipment (development of smart technologies) to improve uniformity, and switching from overhead to micro (drip) irrigation potentially offers water savings, but only on appropriate soils and for selected crops. On-farm trials would help quantify the water saving potential and help identify the practical operational challenges.

As well as reducing water use in-field, there are also opportunities for reducing water use in vegetable processing. Fruit and vegetables can be processed in many different ways depending on the type of raw material and end product. There are two major sectors, fresh packed products and processed products. Opportunities include:

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 25

Improving product conveying systems to reduce/eliminate wet transportation of products and waste;

Reducing water usage for primary product cleaning where appropriate by using dry methods such as vibration with sieving and sifting devices; improved washing techniques;

Adopting tank and equipment cleaning-in-place (CIP) procedures to reduce chemical, water and energy consumption;

Using taps with automatic shut-off valves and high water pressure and optimised nozzles;

Separating cooling water from process water to enable recycling of wastewater and recirculation of cooling waters;

Effluent strength increases if solid wastes - such as trimmings - come into contact with water. Removing the solid waste avoids having to pay unnecessary effluent treatment and disposal costs;

Selecting equipment and techniques that reduce water use, solid waste, and effluent volume and strength. Consider using separate water systems to achieve better control of treated water use, and;

Considering using spray systems to minimise water use during processing. Delivering water to an integrated blancher-cooler tunnel system with a spray system uses much less water than blanching and cooling baths. The system is also less labour intensive.

Water can also be cost-effectively re-used from fruit and vegetable processing in various ways:

Water used in flumes (for conveying solid waste) can be reused following suitable treatment;

Screening water to remove grit, stones and other debris allows it to be reused (e.g. rinsing);

Ultra filtration can filter out larger molecules – for example, proteins and fine colloidal material, while nanofiltration takes out smaller molecules such as sugars;

Used water can be stored and then reused for irrigation, and;

Produce can be rinsed in a series of tanks or stages - lower rates of water use are achieved with counter-current rinsing because the produce is rinsed initially in dirty water and then in progressively cleaner water.

4.13 Protected (glasshouse) cropping

This sector covers protected vegetables (e.g. lettuce, tomato, cucumber, herbs, pepper) and protected fruit (mainly soft fruit under glass). Field grown soft fruit (e.g. strawberry) covered by temporary Spanish or French polythene tunnels is excluded. All protected crops are dependent on irrigation to meet crop water requirements for growth, yield and quality, with a high proportion of the marketable edible product composed of water. Any restriction in water supply, even for very short periods, can have catastrophic consequences for the crop and business sustainability. Given the high crop value and levels of technology employed, for a significant majority of protected edible cropping businesses, water is already used very economically. There is thus little incentive for further reducing water consumption per se within the sector, provided a reliable water supply is available. However, there is always potential for improving irrigation management (scheduling) driven by the financial benefits associated with improvements in crop quality combined with legislative demands for greater environmental protection. The Annex 1 report for protected cropping reviewed water use and the opportunities for water saving within specific areas (hydrological pathways). However, many of the water management issues highlighted for the hardy nursery stock sector (HNS) are equally applicable to protected edible cropping – the potential options for water saving are thus similar to those in the HNS sector. The main hydrological pathways for water use in protected edibles (PE) cropping are summarised in Figure 3.

Water use in protected edibles is mainly required to meet crop demand (irrigation) with relatively small amounts used for crop spraying, cleaning of cropping structures (glass, floors and equipment), and crop washing. For example, field data collected from a series of on-farm water audits on selected nurseries confirms that crop water demand generally accounts for around 80-90% of total water use in the business (Table 1 in Annex 2). Other areas, including spraying, equipment washing and drainage, collectively account for a small proportion (<10%). The logical area for identifying opportunities for water saving should thus focus on crop water demand.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 25

Figure 3 Possible water use pathways in protected cropping production.

Based on an estimated water use for protected edibles of 9600 m3 ha-1 yr-1 (960 mm yr-1) (King et al., 2006), the overall water use for this sector in the UK is about 8.3 Mm3 yr-1. The greatest consumption is in South East England, where 25% of the total production area is concentrated, where solar radiation levels are greatest but where summer droughts are most likely to affect water resource availability (Thompson et al., 2007).

Overall, water consumption for protected edible cropping constitutes a very small proportion of total agricultural and horticultural consumption, even though local water use may be high from large nurseries in summer. Water use efficiency (amount of ‘crop per drop’) is, however, very high compared to field cropping due to the intensity of production. Additionally, the high relative crop value means that the financial value (benefit) of the water applied is very high compared to most other irrigated crop sectors.

In most nurseries, irrigation scheduling is accurately achieved to meet crop needs consistent with maintaining necessary crop quality. There may be some scope to incorporate newer technological developments, but there is relatively little scope for saving large quantities of water applied.

Hydroponic cropping involving application of nutrients in solution limits the degree of recirculation possible to maintain nutrient balance without the need for some solution replenishment. Further development into e.g. ion-specific probes is needed before completely closed systems are possible.

The trend of substituting mains or abstracted water with harvested rainwater will continue, and is likely to have the greatest impact on reducing pressure on water resources. However, space for building sufficient storage capacity is a real problem for some nurseries. There may be opportunities for building and sharing reservoir storage between nurseries where they are in close proximity.

4.14 Hardy nursery stock

This sector covers a wide range of crop species (including trees, shrubs, herbaceous perennials and nursery production of fruit plants) with a diverse range of production techniques and cycles (duration and timing), some field cultivated, others container grown (or a combination during the production cycle). The intensity of cropping and levels of technology employed cover a wide spectrum from extensive field plantings to intensive sophisticated protected cropping. Benchmarking water use cannot be generalised in this sector without taking into account these factors. HNS are high value crops. All container production and much field production are entirely reliant on a guaranteed irrigation supply. Rainfall will only provide between 20 – 50% of water needs for outdoor container production (Grant and Burgess, 2007). Interruption of supply for more than a few days during critical times can lead to total crop loss and economic disaster for the business. Irrigation is for quality assurance of HNS rather than yield. Correct irrigation management and scheduling is of increasing importance in this sector (including avoiding over-irrigation) to maintain crop quality. Water management is also linked with pest, disease and weed control and efficient labour use, in addition to making best use of limited water supplies.

Water is thus vital for the HNS sector, particularly as container growing and containerisation forms such an important part of total production. The sector is becoming increasingly open to the uptake of new

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 25

technology relating to irrigation and water use. This is being driven partly by legislation and restrictions on obtaining or extending abstraction licences in some areas, the increasing costs of mains water, and the need to demonstrate better water use efficiency as a requirement of quality assurance schemes demanded by customers. There is also an increasing realisation of the other advantages that better irrigation management can have to economic benefits to businesses. While the level of water management varies greatly within the sector, most nurseries are open to improvements provided they can see the potential benefits to their business.

Water use in HNS production is primarily for irrigation, with much smaller volumes used for ‘other’ uses including crop spraying, cleaning of protected cropping structures, containers, cropping beds and machinery (Figure 4). Water use for processing will be relatively small, but will include some washing of bare root stock for pre-pack marketing. Climate control also consumes little water with negligible frost protection use (unlike protection of top fruit crops during blossom). Removal of excessive atmospheric heat by misting is rarely used for protected cropping in UK climates, but control of propagation environments by mist or fog is important in this sector, albeit a minor consumption. Of the 6200 ha estimated for HNS in England and Wales in 2005, 5000 ha (81%) was reported to be irrigated (accounting for an abstraction volume of 25 million m3) (Knox et al., 2010).

Figure 4 Possible water use pathways in hardy nursery stock production.

As overhead irrigation remains the most widespread method of watering container crops, the potential for greatest water savings in the HNS sector can be made by the way overhead systems are designed and managed. Most of the technology is already well established, so while recent innovations in scheduling technology are very valuable, the biggest gains in water savings can be made from more nurseries understanding and adopting current best practice.

Through recent Horticulture LINK and HDC projects (Harrison-Murray, 2003; Grant and Burgess, 2007; Davies, 2010), two important pieces of technology have been developed that are now available for commercial uptake by the HNS industry. The first uses a soil moisture probe and controller to enable in-pot moisture content to be measured, and a standard irrigation valve opened and closed according to user-adjustable set points to automatically schedule irrigation. This ‘closed-loop’ feedback approach takes account of all of the complex of factors affecting water uptake into the pot, including rainfall, and varying water use by the plant as it grows. The GP1 logger and controller make use of software that can control irrigation from one or more moisture probes and other inputs such as temperature or a rain gauge if required. Extensive trials on commercial beds of over 500 m2 have shown that GP1 scheduling can use less than 50% of water compared with comparably cropped beds that are manually scheduled. The other important innovation has been the development of the Evaposensor for use in irrigation scheduling. The Evaposensor was invented at East Malling Research, originally as a research tool for controlling mist propagation environments (Harrison-Murray, 1991a and 1991b). The sensor is sensitive to the key drivers affecting evapotranspiration: solar radiation, temperature, humidity and wind. The Evaposensor and Evapometer is a relatively inexpensive method of collecting ET data on farms and nurseries compared to the use of an automatic weather station. A major advantage is that a suitably sited Evaposensor will monitor ET for all outdoor crops, and another can be used for all crops under similar protected environments. In the recently completed HNS ‘Water LINK 2’ project, the use of infra-red sensing of foliage canopy temperatures as a means of identifying either individual water-stressed plants, or areas of a bed, was developed (Davies, 2010). This is based on the principle that most plants close down their stomata when soil water is limiting, as a way of minimising further water loss which would lead to wilting and tissue damage. Foliage then becomes warmer relative to a well

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 25

watered plant, because it no longer loses as much heat through evaporative cooling. Further development is required before this method of infrared irrigation scheduling can be adopted by the industry. The scope for uptake will be linked to the willingness of nurseries to also adopt gantry irrigation. Initially, it will be of interest to larger nurseries with a significant area of suitable glasshouse production, but could be adapted for outdoor gantry systems. It is also likely to be of interest to pot and bedding producers.

Using accurate weather forecasting to avoid wasting irrigation on outdoor crops shortly before heavy rainfall could save significant volumes of water, because of the large areas involved, because heavy irrigation doses are often used to restore soil water reserves, and because there is less opportunity to recapture drainage water. Forecasting is less relevant for container crops because lighter and more frequent scheduling patterns are typical. However, rain gauges linked to irrigation controllers can automatically reduce or avoid applying irrigation to pots shortly after or during rain. Although this has been available for some years, there is scope for more widespread adoption by nurseries.

5.2 Promoting knowledge transfer in novel water saving technologies (case studies)

Experience with the LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) marque demonstration farms in the UK has shown that on-farm commercially operated demonstrations can be very effective for highlighting and transferring new knowledge and experience between farmers and growers. In the future, demonstration farms for water could help promote good land and water stewardship, help identify alternate innovative approaches to adapting to water scarcity, and show-case new irrigation technologies and practices. They would provide focal points for problem solving, networking, and staff training. They would also inform and educate a wide range of other stakeholders about the role and importance of agriculture in the world of water. For example, educational field visits, guided tours and Open Days would provide local agricultural colleges, schools, and the general public with new opportunities to discover how water is an essential component in modern agri-food production, helping to grow high quality fruit and vegetables, whilst protecting the environment. Demonstration farms for water were one of a raft of initiatives suggested by Knox et al (2008) for the UK agribusiness sector as part of developing a water strategy for agriculture. In that strategy, one of the main themes was to “Develop a knowledge base for agriculture” with a vision to continuously improve the knowledge and skills of those engaged in water management in the food and farming industry, to ensure that future water supplies were used wisely.

Yet in spite of the high priority given to improving water efficiency it is surprising just how little information and support is readily available. A knowledge base is needed so that agri-businesses can access the latest information to improve their skills and understanding of water management. Promoting knowledge transfer in novel water saving technologies via the use of farmer case studies will thus help to keep agri-businesses informed and updated on the latest information. In this project, four case studies (one for each sector) have been produced to highlight different innovations in agricultural water management on-farm: (i) irrigated field vegetables and salads in W. Sussex, (ii) irrigated potatoes in Lincolnshire, (iii) protected soft fruit in Hampshire, and (iv) hardy nursery stock production in Lincolnshire.

The case studies produced are suitable for use by Farming Futures and others (e.g. NFU, AHDB sector divisions, UKIA, EA, CLA) to disseminate on-farm water saving ideas and demonstrate novel technologies in irrigated agriculture. Each case study is provided in Annex 2.

5.3 Identifying emerging technologies for water saving in agriculture (Delphi analysis)

Leading experts on agricultural water use from a wide range of organisations were invited to join the expert panel. Contacts were established in the UK and internationally, and postings made on the international Irrigation_L listserver to promote awareness of the project. In total, 107 experts were approached; 27 respondents, from a number of different countries and backgrounds (farming, government, research, consulting) ultimately joined the panel (Table 1). Importantly, a significant proportion of the respondents (+30%) were from growers and/or farming organisations, and conversely a low proportion were from the commercial sector. For subsequent analyses, the feedback data are aggregated into three regions (UK, USA, Australia). These were chosen to assess whether the reported differences might be related to contrasting agroclimatic conditions (e.g. arid, temperate, humid), differences in water regulation or other factors (e.g. relative importance of agriculture to the national economy, employment).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 25

Table 1 Delphi analysis respondents, by sector and country.

Sector Country No respondents

Academic / ResearchAustralia 4USA 0UK 2

GovernmentAustralia 3USA 2UK 0

CommercialAustralia 0USA 1UK 3

Farming organisation/growersAustralia 0USA 0UK 12

Total 27

The process was intended to be conducted over two rounds, but due to low levels of uptake/participation, only one round was fully completed. In this round, respondents were asked for information on the methods and water sources used for irrigation, new technologies being developed and promoted, the barriers and stimuli to uptake of novel/new technologies, and future concerns regarding water resources for agriculture. The limited feedback has been analysed and summarised below.

5.31 Water-related concerns that might support development of novel water saving technologies in agriculture

Internationally, agricultural production is facing a raft of agronomic, economic, environmental and regulatory risks regarding access to reliable and secure water resources. From the Delphi analysis, 11 risks were identified. These have been ranked according to their relative importance for UK agriculture (Figure 5). The greatest concern identified by a third of the UK respondents was limited water supplies. Similarly, in the USA (50%) and Australia (25%) this was also their highest ranking concern. Nearly a quarter (22%) of UK respondents identified water regulation processes (abstraction licensing regime and water allocation policies) as being a significant concern within agriculture. Competition for limited water supplies (notably between agriculture, public mains supply and the environment) and longer-term worries regarding the impacts of climate change on water supplies and demand were also important.

5.32 Water-related stimuli that might support development of novel water saving technologies in agriculture

From the Delphi analysis, 11 water-related stimuli were identified that might provide scope for promoting the development of novel water saving technologies. These have been ranked according to their relative importance for UK agriculture based on the limited responses (Figure 6). For the UK and Australia, water abstraction restrictions were identified as being the most significant stimuli to encourage the uptake of novel and emerging technologies. Water restrictions impact on the capacity of a farm business to deliver continuous supplies of premium grade produce demanded by the major multiples. Any failure to supply these markets thus exposes them to potential breaches of contract, and/or loss of future confidence. Ensuring reliable supplies of water for the cropping season to meet peak demands in the driest summers of the driest years is therefore a priority – measures by which novel technologies might support this or help to mitigate the risks associated with water abstraction restrictions are thus particularly relevant and welcomed by farmer and growers. Other significant factors likely to stimulate interest and uptake to novel water saving technologies include improved economics (better financial returns by farmers) and the cost of water. As farm gate prices for high value fruit and vegetables, as well as grains and oilseeds rise, the operating conditions for farmers to consider investments in novel water saving technologies become more financially attractive, although continued long-term instability and fluctuation in crop prices will mean that investments are highly sensitive to underlying market conditions.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Change in crop types and farming systems

Population increase

Uniform water application

Need affordable water saving technologies

Imports

Better education regarding water efficiency

Increased water and production costs

Changes in water quality

Unrealistic concerns for the environment

Climate change

Competition for limited water supplies

Water regulation prcesses (licensing)

Limited water supplies

Proportion of total responses (%)

UK

USA

Australia

Figure 5 Water-related concerns identified in agriculture, aggregated by region.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Increased yields

Education/knowledge transfer

Cost of inputs

Cost of technology

Reduced labour

Fewer imports

Pressure from government

Market pressure

Cost of water

Improved economics

Water restrictions


UK

USA

Australia

Figure 6 Water-related stimuli identified in agriculture, aggregated by region.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 16 of 25

5.33 Novel and emerging technologies - opportunities for improving water management in agriculture

The final stage in the Delphi analysis involved identifying and assessing the opportunities for developing novel and emerging water saving technologies. These were focussed on specific aspects of water management in agriculture, including measures to improve farmers’ technical understanding of the issues, improve equipment performance and support better management practices (Figure 7).

0 10 20 30 40 50

Improve govt management with telemetry

Performance monitoring (benchmarking)

EMI soil mapping

Evaporation mitigation

Crop water requirements

Promote drip irrigation

Promote subsurface drip irrigation

Change to covered cropping

Automatic self cleaning screen filters

Identify system losses

Improved water storage facilities

Adopt deficit irrigation techniques

Monitor evapotranspiration (ET)

No drain drippers

Accurate data record keeping

Automatic valve controllers

Recycle water

Soil moisture monitoring

Plant breeding

Real time monitors for surface irrigation

Equipment monitoring (benchmarking)

Better irigation scheduling


UK

USA

Australia

Figure 7 Water-related stimuli identified in agriculture, aggregated by region.

In the UK, the main areas considered to provide an opportunity to develop new water saving technologies included those to support improved irrigation scheduling, and better soil moisture and equipment performance monitoring, preferably in real-time. Efficient irrigation requires the adoption of best irrigation practice using appropriate equipment with accurate water scheduling. Technologies that are currently most promising include water application systems (optimising irrigation equipment performance such as valve-in-head sprinklers, intelligent rain-guns and booms, and trickle irrigation), improved scheduling using wireless sensors and/or infra-red technology (crop thermal imaging), reducing energy consumption by improving pump-system performance, and understanding the impacts of poor efficiency on irrigation uniformity and crop production. These opportunities are consistent with ongoing Defra Hortlink research to improve water management through the development of precision irrigation techniques, coupling wireless soil moisture sensing technologies with variable rate application technology (HL0196) and projects to improve water use efficiency and crop responses to drought stress (HL0187 and HL0168).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 17 of 25

However, in promoting novel and new water saving technologies, it is important that the objectives of such measures are clear, and particularly the expectation that improving water efficiency will automatically lead to reductions in water consumption. For example, internationally, irrigation has a reputation for low efficiency (Turrel et al., 2010) but good irrigators in the UK use relatively little water by international standards. There is of course always scope to use less water and manage it better, making the maximum use of soil moisture and rainfall, knowing precisely where and when irrigation does have to be applied, and then applying it accurately and uniformly, are fundamental steps in the ‘pathway to efficiency’ (Knox et al., 2011). Introducing new technologies and management practices developed in more arid countries, together with efforts to bring the average nearer to the best (benchmarking) could also provide the keys to achieving better resource efficiency in the UK and hence ‘more crop per drop’.

The potential for novel or new technologies to ‘save water’ therefore needs to be considered alongside measures to make ‘better use of water’ since UK farmers’ concepts of water efficiency are linked to maximising the farms’ economic productivity rather than saving water per se, except perhaps when their own allocated resources may be inadequate.

5. Barriers and enablers to new technology uptake

In addition to the concerns and stimuli identified above, it is important to also recognise some of the broader risks, barriers and enablers that might constrain or promote uptake of water saving technologies in the short to medium term. Many of these have been identified by Knox et al (2010) in their assessment of ‘climate’ and ‘non climate’ risks to UK agriculture. In the context of water saving technologies, the relevant economic, environmental and technological ‘non-climate’ risks, classified according to whether they occur on or off-farm are summarised in Table 2. Some of the barriers and enablers to new technology uptake are then highlighted.

Barriers to new technology uptake include for example, the very high degree of short to medium term uncertainty in agricultural policy and markets, including speculative agricultural commodity trading, inflexibility in the abstraction licensing regime may limit the potential for water trading and allocation of water to high value cropping and poor availability of finance and investment in research and technology development. Technology enablers include mechanisms and initiatives to promote improved resource efficiency (notably water and energy), supporting education and knowledge transfer, investments, incentives, building capacity in the agriculture sector and governance systems, water user associations which provide opportunities for collective action in natural resource management, and tax breaks, for example capital allowance schemes, to invest in new technologies.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 18 of 25

Table 2 Summary of ‘non-climate’ risks to UK crop production that relate to the uptake of novel water saving technologies, grouped according economic, technological and environmental risk (derived from Knox et al., 2010).

Economic risks Environmental risks Technological risks

Off-

farm

Impacts of European agro-economic policy and CAP reform on business viabilityImpacts of instability in commodity markets at global and European levels on UK crop pricesForeign exchange rates, especially £:Euro and £:US$ ratiosSupermarket pressures on the food supply chainHigh costs of borrowing limit investment in new technologies and promote risk-avoidance in decision makingHigher UK taxes deter on-farm investmentRising environmental costs associated with charges for water and pollution

Low river flows limiting availability and reliability of water for irrigation abstractionEnvironmental regulation (e.g. Birds, Habitats Directives) constraining agricultural productionFear of GMOs and novel technologyActual damage caused by GMOs and novel technology

Inadequate research and development of new technologies appropriate to UK farming conditionsAdoption and uptake of technological advances lags behind European competitorsImproved storage and transport technologies remove barriers to importsLack of investment in new research and technology (resulting in reduced competitiveness)Reduced number of people employed in the agricultural sector with a risk of dislocation to urban areas

On-

farm

Energy costs for crop productionRising labour costs and labour supply problemsRising environmental costs relating to meeting supermarket grower protocolsRising costs of fertiliser (linked to energy costs) and seed

Soil degradation: compaction (heavy machinery, inappropriate management) /salinity build up (excessive use of fertilisers)

Inadequate knowledge transfer and understanding of new technologies which limit technology uptakeRising cost of energy on which technology is dependent (affect irrigation abstraction and machinery used in agriculture/food processing)

Barriers to new technology uptake include for example, the very high degree of short to medium term uncertainty in agricultural policy and markets, including speculative agricultural commodity trading, inflexibility in the abstraction licensing regime may limit the potential for water trading and allocation of water to high value cropping and poor availability of finance and investment in research and technology development. Technology enablers include mechanisms and initiatives to promote improved resource efficiency (notably water and energy), supporting education and knowledge transfer, investments, incentives, building capacity in the agriculture sector and governance systems, water user associations which provide opportunities for collective action in natural resource management, and tax breaks, for example capital allowance schemes, to invest in new technologies.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 19 of 25

6. Summary and policy implications

This study has served to identify and assess the individual hydrological pathways in which water is used in four key agricultural and horticultural sectors. Complementary case studies for each sector have highlighted practical examples of how water use can be improved and managed to minimise ‘non-beneficial’ losses and to maximise water and farm returns. A Delphi style analysis using a mixed UK and international panel of experts has identified some of the concerns (barriers) and stimuli required to promote novel water saving technologies across the agricultural sector. Concerns regarding security of water, water completion, rising costs of abstraction, and increased water and environmental regulation are the main drivers responsible to increasing farmer awareness of the importance of water and their interest in considering water saving technologies. Technologies need to be agronomically suitable, practically feasible and economically viable before widespread uptake will occur. The study concludes that there is no single novel technique that will reduce water use significantly in any one of the identified sectors. Many of the approaches proposed are based around improved and better water management. Maximising the effective use of rainfall (through capture and use of rain water and re-cycled water in appropriate situations), reducing losses and leakage (through appropriate monitoring and recording), harvesting high flows via on-farm storage and refining processing and cleaning operations to minimise water use and costs appear to be the most sensible options. Specific options for improving water productivity (more crop per drop) in irrigated agriculture have also been identified.

7. AcknowledgementThe authors acknowledge the individual contributions of the expert panel for the Delphi analysis, and support from members of the AHDB levy board (HGCA, EBLEX, Horticultural Development Company, DairyCo, and BPEX), the UK Irrigation Association (UKIA), NFU, CLA, Environment Agency and Waterwise.

8. OutputResearch on water at Warwick. The Vegetable Farmer. September 2011, 29-31.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 20 of 25

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

ADAS (2004). Independent Water Audits for Protected Crops Producers. Commissioned by Defra Horticulture and Potatoes Division.

Anon (2002). Red meat safety and clean livestock. Published by Food Standards Agency, London. 2K FSA/0595/0602. 2002.

Anon (2006). Saving money by reducing waste. Waste minimisation manual: a practical guide for farmers and growers. PB11674. Published by Defra and BOC Foundation, April, 2006. www.defra.gov.uk. 2006.

Aquaglobe. Livestock drinking systems (2010). (http://www.aquaglobe.se/bite-ball-valves-p.html)

Arato V. Pig drinker (2010). (http://www.thepigsite.com/focus/arato/3139/arato-pig-drinkers-high-quality-drinkers-for-sows-weaners-growers-finishers-and-boars)

Briercliffe, T., Hewson, A., and Brough, W. (2000). Independent water audits for container grown nursery stock producers. ADAS Horticulture. Summary report for MAFF Water audits.

Brough, W. and Drakes, D. (2008). Independent Water Audits for Growers of Ornamentals in South East England. ADAS UK, Cambridge. Summary report for South East England Development Agency.

Brugger, M.F. & Dorsey, B. (2008). Using Water Meters to Reduce Dairy Farm Water Use. Livestock Environment VIII.

Brumm, M.C. (2005). Water Systems for Swine. Pork Information Gateway Fact Sheet. (http://www.pork.org/pig/NEWfactSheets/07-02-01g.pdf)

Brumm, M.C., Dahlquist, J.M. and Heemstra, J.M. (2000). Impact of feeders and drinker devices on pig performance, water use, and manure volume. Swine Health Production 8(2): 51-57.

Burgess, C.M., and Long, B.J. (2003). Container HNS Irrigation: Use of capillary matting under protection. Final report on HDC Project HNS 107. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Burgess, C.M., Foster, S.A. and Long, B.J. (2004). Container HNS: Improving water management within growing media. Final report on HDC Project HNS 107a. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Burgess, C.M. (2005). Measuring and improving performance of overhead irrigation for container-grown crops. HDC Factsheet 16/05. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Burgess, C.M. (2006). Methods and equipment for matching irrigation supply to demand in container grown crops. HDC Factsheet 19/05. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.

Carter, R.C., Kay M G &and Weatherhead, E.K. (1999). Water losses in smallholder irrigation schemes, Agricultural Water Management 40:15-24.

Collier, R., Fellows, J.R., Adams, S.R., Semenov, M., and Thomas, B. (2008).Vulnerability of horticultural crop production to extreme weather events. Aspects of Applied Biology 88: 3-14.

Costa, J.M, Ortuno, M.F. and Chaves, M.M (2007). Deficit Irrigation as a Strategy to Save Water: Physiology and Potential Application to Horticulture. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49:1421–1434.

Dagg, M. and Macartney, J. C. (1968). The agronomic efficiency of the N.I.A.E. mechanized tied ridge system of cultivation. Experimental Agriculture 4: 279-294.

Defra (2009). Basic Horticultural Statistics 2009 (https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/bhs/2009/default.asp)

Dodds P.A.A., Taylor, J.M., Else, M.A., Atkinson, C.J., and Davies, W.J. (2007). Partial rootzone drying increases antioxidant activity in strawberries. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Human Health Effects of Fruits and Vegetables. Acta Horticulturae 744: 295-302.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 21 of 25

DairyAustralia (2009). Saving water in dairies. http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Farm/Milking-Cows/Saving-Water-in-Dairies.aspx

Dairy Co. (2009b). Farmer Water Survey Report. (www.dairyco.org.uk)

DairyCo (2007). Effective use of water on dairy farms.

DairyCo. (2009a). Effective use of water on dairy farms.

DairyCo., Environment Agency, DairyUK, NFU and RABDF. (2008). The Environmental Plan for Dairy Farming. Progress and achievements.

Dairy Supply Chain Forum (2008). Milk Road Map. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/pdf/milk-roadmap.pdf)

Davies, W.J. (2010). Enhancing the quality of hardy nursery stock and sustainability of the industry through novel water-saving techniques. Final Report of HDC/Defra LINK project HNS 97b. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.

Defra statistics (2008) (https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/auk/2008/AUK2008CHAPTER5_AUK.pdf)

DeLaval. Cleaning unit C200. (http://www.delaval.com/NR/rdonlyres/C7337FDE-F434-46F2-93F5-A9FE79D5BAC1/0/11243_Cleaning_unit_C200_low.pdf)

Defra (2006). Basic Horticultural Statistics 2005 (calendar years 1994-2005). Publ. Defra Farming Statistics, York.

Defra (2009). Basic Horticultural Statistics – 2009 (https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/bhs/2009/default.asp)

Delta-T Devices Ltd (2005). Available from http://www.delta-t.co.uk/products.html?product2005092818929

EA (2008). Demand for water in the 2050s – briefing note. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK 12 pp.

EA. (2009). The Water Use Efficiency Awards (2009). Available online at: http://www.water-efficiency-awards.org.uk/index.php

Ecolab. Lactivate system. (http://www.ecolab.com/Europe/businesses/food_and_beverage/agribusiness/lactivate.asp)

Environment Agency (2008). Managing Water Abstraction. Interim update. June 2008. Bristol, UK.

Environment Agency (2001). Water Efficiency Awards. (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/water_efficiency_a4_886777.pdf)

Environment Agency (2003). Water Efficiency Awards. (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/wea_2003_full__886767.pdf)

Environment Agency (2005). The Environment Agency Water Efficiency Awards 2005. (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/wea_2005_final_copy1_1099598.pdf )

Environment Agency (2007). Waterwise on the farm. (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0307BLVH-e-p.pdf and http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/geho0307blvhepweb_432285.pdf)

Environment Agency (2008). Best Farming Practices. (http://publications.environment_agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0908BOMP_e_e.pdf

Environment Agency (2009). Rainwater harvesting: an on farm guide.

(http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/4aaa2a8e00d78e3a273fc0a8029606a4/Product/View/GEHO0908BOMP&2DE&2DE#)

Farming Futures (2009). Case studies. Available online at: http://www.farmingfutures.org.uk/x10.xml

Farming Futures.

(http://www.farmingfutures.org/documents/Section%20Attachments/JulianHasler_CS7_WEB.pdf)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 22 of 25

Feret, B., Marcinek, M. (1999). The future of the academic library and the academic librarian: a Delphi study. Librarian Career Development 7, 91-107.

Grant, O. M., and Burgess, C. M. (2007). Container Nursery Stock Irrigation: Demonstration and promotion of best practice. Final report on HDC Project HNS 122 2004-7. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.

Harrison-Murray, R.S. (1991a) A leaf-model evaporimeter for estimating potential transpiration in propagation environments. Journal of Horticultural Science 66, 131-139.

Harrison-Murray R.S. (1991b) An electrical sensor for potential transpiration: principle and prototype. Journal of Horticultural Science 66,141-149.

Harrison-Murray, R.S. (2003). Improving the control and efficiency of water use in container-grown hardy ornamental nursery stock. Final report of HDC / Defra LINK project HNS 97. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Harrison Murray Burgess, C.M., and (2010). Making sense of ET for nursery crops. UK Irrigation, Journal of the UK Irrigation Association 37: 11-13.

Hayman, G. (2010). Personal communication. Executive Officer, British Tomato Growers Association.

Hewson, A, Hutchinson, D and Burgess, C (2006). Capillary irrigation of container grown nursery stock. HDC Factsheet 01/06. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire

Hobson, G.E. (1995). Improved tomato fruit quality by design. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 412:117-126 http://www.actahort.org/books/412/412_13.htm

Hybu Cig Cymru. (2008). Water management on farms and farmland. Meat Promotion Wales. (http://www.hccmpw.org.uk/medialibrary/publications/HCC%20Water%20management%20A5%20booklet%20web.pdf)

Hydrocheck Ltd. Water Management Systems. (www.hydrocheck.co.uk)

King, J., Tiffin, D., Drakes, D. & Smith, K. (2006). Water use in agriculture: establishing a baseline. Report for Defra Project WU0102. (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WU0102_4274_FRP.doc )

Knox, J. W., Weatherhead, E. W., and Rodriguez-Diaz, J. A. (2007). Assessing optimum irrigation water use:

Kaynak, E., Bloom, J., Leibold, M., 1994. Using the Delphi Technique to Predict Future Tourism Potential. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 12(7), 18-29.

King, J.A., Tiffin, D.H., Drakes, D., Smith, K.A. (2006). Water Use in Agriculture: Establishing a Baseline. Report for Defra Project WU0102 (October 2006).

Knox, J.W., Morris, J., Weatherhead, E.K., and Turner, A.P. (2000). Mapping the financial benefits of spray irrigation and potential financial impact of restrictions on abstraction: a case study in Anglian Region. Journal of Environmental Management 58:45-59.

Knox, J.W., and Weatherhead, E.K. (2005). The growth of trickle irrigation in England and Wales; data, regulation and water resource impacts. Irrigation and Drainage 54:1-9.

Knox, J. W., Weatherhead, E. W., and Rodriguez-Diaz, J. A. (2007). Assessing optimum irrigation water use: additional agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. Technical Report SC040008 / SR Part 1. Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire.

Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., E.W. Weatherhead and Hammett, P. (2007). Development of an agri-food sector water programme for Eastern England. Final Report (PMS 5809) to East of England Development Agency (EEDA) and the Environment Agency (EA). Cranfield University

Knox, J. W., Kay, M. G., Weatherhead, E. K., Burgess, C. M., Rodriguez-Diaz, J. A., (2009). Development of a water strategy for horticulture. Final Report HDC Project CP64. Horticultural Development Company, AHDB, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire.

Knox, J.W., Weatherhead, E.K., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., and Kay, M.G. (2009). Strategies to improve irrigation efficiency in a temperate climate – a case study in England. Outlook on Agriculture 38(4): 303-309.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 23 of 25

Knox, J.W., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., Weatherhead, E.K., and Kay, M.G. (2010a). Development of a water strategy for horticulture in England and Wales. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 85(2): 89-93.

Knox. J.W., Morris, J., and Hess, T.M. (2010b). Identifying future risks to UK agricultural crop production – putting climate change in context. Outlook on Agriculture 39 (4): 249-256.

Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., and Weatherhead, E.K. (2011). Water regulation, crop production, and agricultural water management – understanding farmer perspectives on irrigation efficiency. Agricultural Water Management (in press)

Lacey, T. (2007). Promoting the efficient use of water, and reducing environmental impacts, in horticultural field vegetable irrigation. PhD thesis (unpublished), Cranfield University.

Lapwood, D. H., Wellings, L. W. and Hawkins, J. H. (1973) Irrigation as a Practical Means to Control Potato Common Scab (Streptomyces scabies): Final Experiment and Conclusions. Plant Pathology 22: 35 – 41.

Larsson, K. (2006). Evaluation of watering systems with bite valves for pigs. JTI-report 239. Swedish Institute of Agricultural Engineering.

Liu, F.L., Shahnazari, A., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E. and Jensen, C.R. (2006). Effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root drying (PRD) on gas exchange, biomass partitioning, and water use efficiency in potato. Scientia Horticulturae 109:113-117.

Li, Y. Z., Chenard, L., Lemay, S. P., & Gonyou, H. W. (2005). Water intake and wastage at nipple drinkers by growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83(6): 1413-1422.

LeafSen Irrigation System Ltd. See http://www.leafsen.com/index.htm (2006)

Leathes, W, Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., Trawick, P., and Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A. (2008). Developing UK farmers' institutional capacity to defend their water rights and effectively manage limited water resources. Irrigation and Drainage 57: 332-331.

Lillywhite, R., Chandler, D., Grant, W., Lewis, K, Firth, C., Schmutz, U., and Halpin, D. (2007) Environmental footprint and sustainability of horticulture (including potatoes) – a comparison with other agricultural sectors. Report for Defra Project WQ0101 by Warwick HRI, University of Warwick. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/whri/research/nitrogenandenvironment/footprint/environmental_footprint.pdf

Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications.

Luquet, D., Vidal, A., Smith, M., and Dauzat, J. (2005). More crop per drop: how to make it acceptable for farmers? Agricultural Water Management 76: 108-119.

MAFF. 1998. The Water Code (Revised 1998). Code of Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water. MAFF Publications PB0585.

Milk Development Council (2007). Effective use of water on dairy farms. (http://www.dairyco.org.uk/media/10351/effectiveuseofwaterondairyfarms.pdf)

Malano, H. and Burton, M. (2001). Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the irrigation and drainage sector. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage.

Malano H. and Davison, B. (2009). A framework for assessing the trade-offs between economic and environmental uses of water in a river basin. Irrigation and Drainage 58: 133-147.

Nuti, R.C., Lamb, M.C., Sorensen, R.B. and Truman, C.C. (2009). Agronomic and economic response to furrow diking tillage in irrigated and non-irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Agricultural Water Management 96: 1078-1084.

Ontario MAFRA (2004). Alternative Livestock Watering Systems. (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/04-027.htm)

Patrick, C., Kechavarzi, C., James, I.T., Dogherty, M.O. and Godwin, R.J. (2007). Developing reservoir tillage technology for semi-arid environments. Soil Use and Management 23(2): 185-191.

Pig Site, The. (http://www.thepigsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7336)

Receau. (http://www.farm-smart.co.uk/andysfiles/BarrieJacksonMakingRainWorkForYouReceau.pdf)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 24 of 25

Receau Ltd. (2006). (http://www.receau.co.uk/index.php).

Rickard, S., Morris, J., and Audsley, E. (2005). Possible futures for agriculture in Northern Europe during a period of policy reform. In: R. Sylvester-Bradley and J. Wisemann, Editors, Yields of farmed species: constraints and opportunities in the 21st century, University of Nottingham Press, Nottingham, UK.

Rowe, G., Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15, 353–375.

Shahnazari, A., Liu, F.L., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E. and Jensen, C.R. (2007). Effects of partial root-zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crops Research, 100: 117-124.

Smith, K.A., Charles, D.R. and Moorhouse, D. (2000). Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters. Part 2: Pigs and poultry. Bioresource Technology 71: 183-194.

Thompson, A., King, J.A., Smith, K.A., Tiffin, D.H. (2007). Opportunities for Reducing Water use in Agriculture. Defra project. WU0101.

Turral, H., Svendsen, M., and Faures, J.M. (2010). Investing in irrigation: Reviewing the past and looking to the future. Agricultural Water Management 97: 551–560.

UK TAG (2005). River Basin District Map Colour Great Britain 72dpi April 2005. Available online at: http://www.wfduk.org/implementation/RBDmapfiles/RBDMaps-jpeg/RBDMapColGB72dpiApr05/view

Water Stewardship (2008). Ensuring a Secure Future for California Agriculture. (http://www.polarisinstitute.org/files/Ag%20Water%20Stewardship_0.pdf)

Weatherhead, E.K., and Knox, J.W. (1997). Peak demands from spray irrigation. Water and Environmental Management. 11: 305-309.

Weatherhead, E. K. (2006). Survey of irrigation of outdoor crops in 2005: England and Wales. Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.

Weatherhead, E.K., Kay, M.G., and Knox, J.W. (2008). Thinking about an irrigation reservoir. Final Technical Report to Environment Agency (EA). Cranfield University.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 25 of 25

Documents

General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9955_WU0… · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science