HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT - A STUDY OF FARMERS’ AND CONTRACTORS’ ATTITUDES

ADAS CONTRACT REPORT FOR MAFF (BD2103). JULY 2000.

HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT:

A STUDY OF FARMERS’ AND CONTRACTORS’ ATTITUDES

ADAS CONTRACT REPORT FOR RURAL DIVISION, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (MAFF CONTRACT NO. BD2103).

JULY 2000.

Chris Britt, Jean Churchward, Lesley Shea, Simon McMillan & Doug Wilson

HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT - A STUDY OF FARMERS’ AND CONTRACTORS’ ATTITUDES

CONTENTS

Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / i
1 / INTRODUCTION / 1
2 / METHODS
2.1Postal survey of farmers / 2
2.2Postal survey of contractors / 3
2.3Follow-up survey / 4
2.4Data analysis / 6
3 / RESULTS
3.1Postal survey of farmers
•Farms - cropping, stocking, field size and soil type / 7
•Hedgerows - description / 8
•Hedgerow management / 9
•Conservation / 19
•Sources of advice and training / 24
•Hedgerow management - influences / 25
3.2Postal survey of contractors
•Contractors’ work / 31
•Hedge trimming / 31
•Sources of advice and training / 34
•Hedgerow management - influences / 34
3.3Follow-up survey:
3.3.1Face-to-face interviews
•Farming / 36
•Hedgerow management / 37
3.3.2Field survey of hedgerows / 60
4 / DISCUSSION / 66
5 / CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 69
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS / 71
REFERENCES / 71
APPENDIX 1: FARMERS’ SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX 2: CONTRACTORS’ SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX 3: FOLLOW-UP SURVEY PRO-FORMA
APPENDIX 4: FIELD SURVEY FORM & INSTRUCTIONS FOR
SURVEYORS

HEDGEROW MANAGEMENT - A STUDY OF FARMERS’ AND CONTRACTORS’ ATTITUDES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

  1. The importance of hedgerows as a landscape feature and wildlife habitat is widely recognised. The conservation value of ancient and species-rich hedgerows was recognised by the inclusion of an action plan for this habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1995).
  2. The problem of hedgerow removal has been partly addressed in recent legislation (Hedgerows Regulations 1997), but bad management of hedgerows is a widespread problem that has not been adequately addressed.
  3. With the overall objective of improving our understanding of the attitudes of farmers and agricultural contractors to hedgerows and hedgerow management, a three stage project was undertaken in 1999/2000:

Stage 1:Postal survey of farmers

Stage 2:Postal survey of contractors

Stage 3:Follow-up survey: on-farm interviews and hedgerow assessments.

  1. This research was directly relevant to MAFF’s policy objectives for hedgerow research, namely: MAFF’s stated policy objectives for hedgerow research, namely:
  1. To promote uptake of hedgerow management practices that conserve and enhance biodiversity, through provision of effective advice on managing hedgerows, in a way that is compatible with the maintenance of agricultural activity and rural livelihoods.
  2. To ensure that the current, and any future, policy mechanisms, or associated developments, maximise the benefits of improved understanding of managing hedgerows with regard to biodiversity at least cost to the farmer and the exchequer.

Postal survey of farmers

  1. Questionnaires were posted to 2000 farmers - 500 each in Devon, Leicestershire, North Yorkshire and the ‘rest of England’. 489 completed questionnaires were returned (24.5%).
  2. Permanent or long-term grass was present on 88% of farms, and 73% had combinable winter crops. Average field sizes ranged from 4.2 ha in Devon to 7.4 ha in North Yorks. Clays and loams were the predominant soil types.
  3. More than half (53%) of all farmers estimated that 25-49% of their field boundaries were hedgerows. Only 17% estimated that at least 75% of their field boundaries were hedgerows.
  4. Overall farmers estimated that their hedges comprised, on average, 51% hawthorn, 14% blackthorn, 7% hazel and 8% gaps. A majority of farm hedges (67%) were said to be between 1.5 and 2.5 m tall.
  5. Most farmers trimmed hedges around arable fields in September/October or July/August, and hedges around grass fields or beside tracks in September/October or November/December. However, there were significant differences between the four regions.
  6. Relatively few hedgerows were trimmed in January/February, the period recommended by current ‘good practice’ guidelines.
  7. Soil type had a highly significant effect on time of trimming hedges adjacent to arable fields, with farms on light soils being more likely than those on loams or clays to trim in late autumn/winter. However, soil type did not significantly affect the time of trimming hedges beside grassland.
  8. Farm type had no significant effect on the time when hedges adjacent to grass fields or tracks were trimmed; but livestock farmers (with relatively small areas of arable land) were less likely than arable or mixed farmers to trim hedges around arable fields in the spring or summer months, and more likely to trim in November/December.
  9. Annual trimming of hedges to a box-shape, with a flail, was the management practice followed by a large majority of farmers. Almost 80% trimmed most of their hedges annually. Flails were used on 97% of farms.
  10. Where hedges were cut to a rectangular or box-shape, most (83%) were always cut on both sides and the top.
  11. Soil type had an effect on frequency of trimming, with farmers on clay soils slightly less likely to trim on a two-yearly rotation, but more likely to trim on three to six-yearly rotations. Farm type had no significant effect on trimming frequency.
  12. The farmer/farm manager usually made decisions relating to when to trim hedges on 83% of farms, with contractors being given this responsibility in 15% of cases.
  13. Contractors trimmed hedges on 63% of farms. Who did the trimming had no significant effect on frequency or timing.
  14. Typical field margin widths around arable fields were 0.5-1.0 m (51% of farms) or 1.0-1.5 m (27%).
  15. More than half of all farmers said that they always prevented drift from spray and fertiliser applications from reaching hedgerows; but over 40% of farmers sometimes or always sprayed weeds in hedge-bottoms.
  16. In the previous five years, hedge laying had been undertaken by 42% of farmers, coppicing by 15%, new hedge planting by 30% and gapping up by 44%. All four of these operations had been undertaken by 6% of farmers, 17% had undertaken at least three, 40% at least two and 67% one or more. More work had been completed without grant-aid than with.
  17. There were significant interactions between hedge laying or coppicing and frequency of hedge trimming. Farmers who had laid or coppiced hedges within the last five years were more likely to trim their hedges less frequently than annually.
  18. Under ‘current conditions’, 23% of farmers said that they would be very likely to repeat the sort of hedgerow conservation operations that they had completed in the previous five years. The availability of more grant aid more than doubled this percentage to 48%.
  19. Although a large majority of farmers were trimming most hedges annually, only 21% thought that this frequency of trimming was ‘ideal’ to maximise benefits to wildlife. Almost half (49%) thought that two-yearly trimming was the ideal frequency and 18% said three-yearly. There was a significant relationship between the actual frequency of hedge trimming and the perceived ‘ideal’ for wildlife benefits.
  20. A majority (61%) of respondents identified the late autumn to early winter period (November-February) as the ideal time to trim hedges in order to maximise their value to wildlife, with a further 28% suggesting that September/October was the optimum period. There were no significant regional differences.
  21. A clear majority (72%) of farmers had not used hedgerow management advice. However, most farmers who had received advice had implemented it, at least in part. The most common reasons for not implementing advice were “too expensive”, impractical”, “skilled labour required was not available” and “advice contradicted good agricultural practice”.
  22. The strongest influences on hedgerow management practice were, in order: “providing stock-proof boundaries” (‘very important’ to 55% of farmers), “keeping the farm tidy” (39%), “maintaining/improving the local landscape” (35%), “providing shelter for livestock” (35%) and “maintaining/improving habitats for wildlife” (34%). Stock-proof boundaries, farm tidiness and landscape benefits were each rated as important or very important by 80-85% of all respondents. Costs were important/very important to 67% of farmers.
  23. Over 30% of farmers regarded fast-growing hedge species (e.g. ash) and the possible inability of machinery to cope as major problems, if hedges are trimmed less frequently than annually. Slightly fewer (24%) considered difficulties in dealing with trimmings as a major problem in this context.
  24. The main factors preventing farmers from trimming in late winter were perceived problems with soil conditions or growing crops. Soil conditions in winter were thought to be a major problem by 68% of farmers. Similarly, growing crops would present a major problem to 54%. Only 3% thought that soil conditions were ‘no problem’.
  25. Most farmers (53%) strongly agreed with the statement that “good hedgerows are a valuable asset on a farm”, and only 6% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. This positive attitude towards hedgerows was also illustrated by the fact that 63% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “hedgerows are an obstacle to efficient farming.”

Postal survey of contractors

  1. Questionnaires were posted to 375 agricultural contractors - 125 in each of three English regions: South-west (Devon/Dorset/Somerset), East Midlands (Leics./Northants./Notts.) and Yorkshire.
  2. Just over 30% were returned, but only 66 (18%) were fully completed (others did not undertake relevant hedgerow work).
  3. Hedgerow management operations accounted for an (estimated) average of 24% of respondents’ contract work.
  4. Almost all contractors (98%) charged on an hourly basis. The average charge was £14.10 per hour.
  5. Almost all contractors (94%) trimmed most of their clients’ hedges annually.
  6. Hedges around arable fields were most commonly trimmed in July/August or September/October. Hedges around grass fields or beside tracks were said to be most commonly trimmed later, in November/December or January/February.
  7. Contractors estimated that approximately 60% of the hedges that they trimmed were cut to a box-shape, with 40% trimmed to an A-shape.
  8. All contractors usually used a flail for trimming.
  9. Clients generally made most decisions about hedgerow management, but contractors frequently had some influence - particularly regarding the shape of hedges.
  10. In contrast to the farmers’ postal survey, most contractors (53%) were of the view that annual hedge trimming was the ‘ideal’ for wildlife. As for the best time of year to trim, to maximise value to wildlife, contractors most frequently selected January/February (54%), September/October (46%) or November/December (41%) [multiple answers were frequently given].
  11. Very few contractors (6%) had been trained in hedgerow management, and 71% said that they had not received any advisory publications.
  12. Contractors’ views of the most important factors determining how hedgerows are managed were similar to those of farmers. Maintaining a stock-proof boundary was considered as important or very important by 92% of contractors. Other important objectives were “maintaining/improving the local landscape” (important or very important to 90%), “keeping the farm tidy” (90%), and “maintaining/improving habitats for wildlife” (82%). Costs were important/very important to 76% of contractors.
  13. As in the farmers’ survey, there was some evidence of a generally positive attitude towards hedgerows. For example, most contractors (63%) strongly agreed with the statement that “good hedgerows are a valuable asset on a farm”, and 98% either agreed or strongly agreed. In addition, 72% of contractors disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “hedgerows are an obstacle to efficient farming.”
  14. Fast growing species (e.g. ash) were seen as a major problem when hedges are trimmed less frequently than annually, by 48% of contractors. Difficulties in dealing with trimmings and an inability of machinery to cope were also seen as major problems in this respect.
  15. Contractors were also broadly in agreement with farmers about the problems preventing late winter hedge trimming. Limited access due to soil conditions was seen as a major problem by 63% of contractors, while 52% saw growing crops as a major problem. Limited labour availability was not regarded as a problem.

Follow-up survey

  1. Using data from the farmers’ postal survey, 96 farms were selected for follow-up visits. During February 2000, visits were made to 32 farms in each of three counties: Devon, Leicestershire and North Yorkshire. Half of the farms in each county were selected as examples of good management practice (‘good’ group) and half as examples of poor practice (‘poor’ group) - based largely on their frequency of hedge trimming and heights of hedges after trimming (the ‘poor’ group having annually trimmed hedges, which were cut relatively short).
  2. At each farm, an in-depth, face-to-face interview was held with the farmer (collecting additional quantitative and qualitative data), before conducting field assessments of five representative hedgerows.
  3. Most farmers (57%) had made one or more major changes in hedgerow management during the previous 10 years. Most of these changes were positive i.e. bringing management closer to environmental guidelines. There was evidence of farmers in both groups trimming some hedges later than previously, in autumn or winter rather than late summer; leaving hedges taller; introducing laying or coppicing; and planting new hedges. Several farmers had moved away from annual trimming (mainly in the ‘good’ group), often as a result of Countryside Stewardship Scheme requirements.
  4. When asked for comments about the main influences determining hedgerow management practice, the need for stock-proof boundaries, a desire for farm tidiness, agricultural needs, conservation interests and costs all emerged as important factors. Further questioning identified landscape benefits, timing to fit in with other work and tradition (local and on farm) as other important concerns.
  5. There were different priorities in different counties. The need for stock-proof boundaries was the most important factor in Devon (very important to 91% of farmers) and landscape benefits most important in Leicestershire (very important to 78%). No single factor had overriding importance to Yorkshire farmers.
  6. Farmers who did not already trim hedges in mid-late winter felt very strongly that wet soils and growing crops would make trimming during this period very difficult, if not impossible.
  7. Several reasons were put forward for continuing to trim hedges annually. Several farmers highlighted the potential problems of difficulties for machinery (especially if fast-growing species were present), damage to hedges, relatively untidy hedges, increased shading of crops, thorns on the ground, possibly higher costs and potential objections from contractors. The larger volumes of ‘debris’ left when hedges are trimmed less frequently than annually were much more likely to be considered a problem, and a factor affecting current management, by those in the ‘poor’ group [who all trimmed annually at the time of the survey]. The cost of removing this debris, damage to tractor tyres and the threat of thorns penetrating animals’ feet were the main causes of their concerns.
  8. Most (72%) of farmers currently trimming less frequently than annually were not clearing up trimmings.
  9. Annual trimming was thought to be more expensive by 44% of farmers, less expensive by 22%. Another 18% considered both options to have similar costs. Farmers in the ‘good’ group [who were not trimming annually] were much more likely to consider annual trimming to be more expensive.
  10. Overall, there were more farmers who considered that annual trimming was good for hedges (46%) than there were farmers who thought the opposite (32%). However, the attitudes of the two groups differed markedly (e.g. 23% of the ‘good’ group and 69% of the ‘poor’ group thought that annual trimming was good for hedges).
  11. A clear majority in both groups regarded annual trimming as bad for wildlife (75% in ‘good’ group and 60% in ‘poor’ group).
  12. Farm tidiness was much more important to farmers in the ‘poor’ group (‘very important’ to 38%, compared with 11% in ‘good’ group). Tidiness was also apparently more important to farmers in N Yorkshire.
  13. Of those farmers not already trimming hedges in late winter, 81% said that trimming at that time would present serious difficulties. Farmers in the ‘poor’ group were much more likely to be of this opinion.
  14. A few farmers had received complaints about their hedgerow management from the general public (14%), official bodies (9%) or other farmers (3%). Moves towards ‘good practice’ were occasionally criticised by neighbouring farmers or by authorities responsible for roadside hedges. A few had received positive comments from members of the public.
  15. Financial incentives were considered to be the best way to encourage adoption of good practice guidelines. Other suggestions included improved technology transfer and use of field margin set-aside to facilitate access for winter hedge trimming. The European Commission’s ‘two metre rule’ was seen as a disincentive to good hedgerow management.
  16. Hedgerow protection legislation, possible cross-compliance measures, management grants and free hedgerow advice were strongly supported as options to encourage good hedgerow management by 44%, 47%, 82% and 70% of farmers respectively. The same options were strongly opposed by 26%, 25%, 6% and 4% respectively.
  17. A quarter of all farmers had received MAFF Countryside Stewardship Scheme grants, and 10% had been grant-aided from other sources. Most grants were paid to farmers in the ‘good’ group, and farmers in Leicestershire.
  18. Approximately one third of farmers had planted hedges in the previous ten years. Farmers in the ‘good’ group planted mainly mixed species hedges, whilst those in the ‘poor’ group planted mainly single species hedges.
  19. Most farmers (66%) considered that their hedgerows were ‘very important’ to wildlife. Only 1% thought that they were ‘of no value’ to wildlife. Farmers in the ‘good’ group were more likely to regard their hedgerows as ‘very important’ (77% against 54% for ‘poor’ group).
  20. Levels of knowledge about wildlife in hedgerows varied considerably. When asked to name species/groups of plants or animals associated with hedgerows, the most commonly given answers were “rabbits” (named by 25% of farmers), “blackbirds” (22%), “thrushes” (18%) “birds” (17%), “badgers” (15%), “foxes” (15%), and “songbirds” (14%).
  21. The average cost of hedge trimming was estimated at £12.40 per hour. The estimated mean cost per farm per year was £706.
  22. Almost 70% of farmers had their hedgerows trimmed by contractors.
  23. Only 21% of farmers thought that less frequent hedge trimming would increase costs, while 45% thought that it would reduce costs. A majority (62%) thought that winter trimming would have no impact on costs; although this conclusion generally did not consider possible crop losses.
  24. Farmers were very strongly of the view that the flail was the most practical and cost-effective machine for hedge trimming. One typical comment was that “Flails are cheap to use and leave no mess.” The flail was also regarded by many as the only readily available option.
  25. Circular saws were seen as useful for cutting overgrown hedges, or for coppicing, but were relatively slow, potentially dangerous and required expensive clearing of debris.
  26. The field survey, of 477 hedgerows, showed that 34% of hedges were fenced on one side, and 15% were fenced on both sides. The mean field margin width, between arable fields and hedgerows was 0.8 m. Hedges were more likely to be box-shaped on farms of the ‘poor’ group, than on farms of the ‘good’ group. The ‘good’ group had taller (mean ht. 2.2 m) and wider (mean width 2.4 m) hedges, many of which had not been trimmed in the current autumn/winter period. Evidence of recent laying was noted in 5% of hedges.
  27. Devon hedges were much richer in woody species (6.5 spp./30 m) than were hedges in Leicestershire (3.3 spp./30 m) or N Yorkshire (3.4 spp./30 m); but there were no differences in the species diversity of hedges in the ‘good’ and ‘poor’ groups. Hawthorn was the dominant species in Leicestershire and N Yorkshire hedges. Blackthorn, hazel and hawthorn were all very frequent in Devon hedges. Both ‘good’ and ‘poor’ sites had very similar numbers of mature hedgerow trees, but the ‘good’ sites had higher numbers of semi-mature trees and saplings.
  28. Coarse grasses (e.g. Arrhenatherum elatius) occurred frequently in 48% of all hedge-bottoms, bare soil in 45% and arable weeds (e.g. cleavers, sterile brome) in 44%. Arable weeds were most frequent in Leicestershire hedgerows and least frequent in Devon. The mean estimated percentage cover for bare soil in hedge-bottoms was 21%. The equivalent figures for cleavers and nettles were 10% and 4% respectively.

Conclusions and recommendations