124 A survey of animal manures (I)

Soil Use and Management (2000) 16, 124^132

A survey of the production and use of animal manures in

England and Wales. I. Pig manure
K.A. Smith1, A.J. Brewer2, A. Dauven3 & D.W.Wilson4

Abstract. A survey was undertaken in1996, by postal questionnaire sent to a stratified sample of 1500 pig produ-
cers in England and Wales; 576 (37%) responded. The survey provided data on manure production, manure sto -
rage and application strategies (timing, techniques and nutrient recycling to crops).
Total pig manure production, in England and Wales is estimated to be at about 10.03 m t per year, with about
45% as slurry and 55% as FYM, according to this survey, where calculations have been based on undiluted out-
puts of excreta. About 45% of slurry is stored in above-ground tanks or earth-banked lagoons. Above-ground
tanks most commonly held an amount of slurry equivalent to 3^6 months production, but earth-banked lagoons
were more variable in capacity and over 20% could hold more than 9 months production of slurry.
Annual statistics on fertilizer use indicate that farmers make little allowance for the nutrient content of man-
ures. However, the results of this survey suggest that farmers generally make a genuine effort to allow for the
nutrients applied, but that they currently fail to be assured by the advice available to them or their confidence is
lacking for other technical reasons. Autumn represents the peak period for spreading, with 30% of slurry and
50% of FYM applied at that time.

Keywords: Pig slurry, farmyard manure, storage, application to land, equipment, nutrients, farmers'attitudes,
UK

I N T RO DUC T I O N tently shown spring applications of slurry N or poultry

manure N to be utilized more efficiently than autumn or
M anures from livestock production, when recycled to
agricultural land, supply plant nutrients and organic
matter, which can help to meet crop requirements and main-
winter dressings (Rees et al. 1993; Jackson & Smith 1997).
Beckwith et al. (1998) have confirmed the environmental
unacceptability of the autumn application of certain manure
tain soil fertility. Based on UK agricultural census data, it is
types within Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs).
estimated that about 80 million tonnes of livestock manures
This study was designed to provide objective and quantita-
are collected in, or from, farm buildings and yards, requiring
tive data, but farmer opinion about actual working practices
handling, storage and application to the land (Smith &
has been shown to be important (Nowak et al. 1998) and so an
Chambers 1998). These manures contain about 450 000
element of this was included. These data enabled an assess-
tonnes of nitrogen (N), 119 000 tonnes of phosphorus (P)
ment to be made of the wider environmental implications of
and 330 000 tonnes of potassium (K). Potential value is esti-
manure management systems and any control measures that
mated at about »200 million per year, based on recent fertili-
may be needed to reduce losses to air, land and water. Infor-
zer prices and `available' N, total P and K content (MAFF
mation on current practice also helps to highlight gaps in
1994). However, without careful management, livestock man-
knowledge or understanding of the factors affecting nutrient
ures can represent both a point source (Environment
fluxes during the recycling of livestock manures to land.This
Agency 1997), and a diffuse source of water pollution (Sharp-
can be used to identify and prioritize research needs and to
ley & Withers 1994; Brenner & Mondok 1995; Lord et al.1999).
assist with the development of appropriate policy.
The extent of nutrient loss to the environment from live-
Results from a survey of manure practices within the pig
stock production is influenced by the management of the
industry in England and Wales, were initially reported by
manure. For example, in mixed arable and livestock farming,
Parham (1997). Further analysis and appraisal of the informa-
it is common practice for livestock manures to be applied to
tion collected in the original survey have been carried out
arable land or grassland in the autumn and winter periods;
and are presented in this paper. Similar data for poultry
in these circumstances, the utilization of N will be low.
manure and for beef and dairy cattle will follow.
Experiments, both on arable land and grassland, have consis-

1
M ET H O D
ADAS Wolverhampton,Woodthorne,Wolverhampton,WV6 8TQ , UK.
2
Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, The survey was designed as a self- completion questionnaire
London, SW1P 3JR, UK. sent out by post in England and Wales. Census data for 1995
3
ADAS Market Research,Wharf House,Wharf Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU1
4RP, UK. (MAFF 1995) were used to compile the mailing list, with a
4
ADAS Gleadthorpe Research, Mansfield, Notts, NG20 9PF, UK. sampling frame designed to reflect the proportion of holdings
1
Corresponding author falling into different size groups (by total pig numbers).
 K.A. Smith et al. 125

Small units of less than100 pigs (according to the June Census row and column independence in which both row and
data) were excluded from the mailing; whilst these small column classifications have a natural ordering.
units represent a major proportion of total holdings (57%),
they account for less than 2% of the national pig herd. Follow- R E SU LTS A N D D I S C USS I O N
ing an initial pilot survey, the forms were mailed in November
1996, with appropriate numbers going to each of the size A total of 576 questionnaires were analysed, a 37% response.
groups and selected at random within them. This compares well with postal surveys of a comparable
The questions (25) were prepared after a consultation pro - nature carried out by ADAS Market Research, where a typical
cess involving manure management and livestock specialists response is in the range of 20% to 30%.The high response is
with modifications following a pilot study involving 100 thought to reflect the well organised structure of many pig
farmers. The aim was to obtain accurate information but to enterprises, the level of interest in this topic and a user-
avoid the need for farmers to consult detailed records. friendly questionnaire. Moreover, the survey response pro -
Copies of the questionnaire used can be obtained from file, in terms of farm size, generally matched the national
ADAS Market Research (see title page). farm size profile well (Table 1). For some questions, the total
answers fell well short of the full response of 576; this was
Data analysis and interpretation because either the question was not applicable to all respon-
Independent, double entry of data from the questionnaires dents or not all respondents completed every question.
returned enabled potentially incorrect entries to be detected
or re- checked. Range checking (maximum and minimum Manure production system
values), allowed a further cross- check of data integrity and, if Respondents were asked to categorize their units into one of
necessary, the removal of impossibilities or improbabilities. four main production systems ^the majority (60%) were
Any remaining,`outlier', values could be referred back to the based mainly on farmyard manure (FYM), with 15% mainly
farmer, though this was generally unnecessary. In addition, slurry, 17% producing both slurry and FYM and a small pro -
the inclusion within the questionnaire of `fields' with stan- portion (7%) on outdoor production units.
dard numbers, allowed a further check on correct data entry Despite the predominance of FYM-based production sys-
by sequencing, eliminating the risk of strings of digits being tems, estimates of annual, total slurry and FYM production
displaced during transfer from the forms. based on pig numbers suggested (within the responding
The data were summarized on the basis of numbers and group) a total of 486 700 t of raw, undiluted slurry and
percentages of respondents, with tabulations of mean values. 646 360 t of FYM; that is about 43% slurry and 57% FYM.
Estimates of total slurry or manure output were made for These figures compare closely with other recent estimates of
each pig unit, from the returns on stock numbers and using 44% slurry and 56% FYM for stored pig manure (Nicholson
standard, published estimates of excreta production (MAFF & Brewer 1997). Also, estimates of 35% slurry and 65%
1994). Data summarized only on the proportion of respon- FYM, based on consultant experience and expert opinion,
dents, can give a misleading impression, depending on the have been used for pigs in UK inventories of gaseous emis-
range of responses to a particular question and the possibility sions (e.g. Pain et al. 1998). Straw-based management systems
of bias towards either large or small units. Therefore, further are often assumed to be more `environmentally friendly' than
analysis based on amounts of manure produced, was also slurry. However, early results from controlled experiments
undertaken. comparing ammonia emissions from solids and liquid
Where the data allowed, statistical tests were made to manure management suggest that, while total losses are simi-
assess significance (Mehta & Patel 1992); for example the lar, the balance of emissions between housing, storage and
source of information and advice used by farmers to assess land application may be quite different (Chambers et al.
the nutrient contribution from manures was compared with 1999a).
their willingness to allow for manures in estimating crop From estimates of annual straw use on farms with a mainly
nutrient requirement. The Fisher exact test FX(x) was used FYM system and the calculated estimate of excreta produc-
to test for row and column independence in tabulated data. tion from stock numbers on these pig units, the average
The Kruskal-Wallis test KW(x) was used to test the rows amount of straw used is 0.15 t. per t of excreta; this compares
(populations) in which the columns have a natural order but well with the straw usage factors (10^25% addition to calcu-
the rows do not. The Jonckheere-Terpestra test JT(x) tested lated excreta production depending on stock type) currently

Table 1. Number of holdings in the survey and comparison of survey data with national statistics.
Survey target Survey response June Census 1995 data

Total number of Full % in No. of % of No. of % of

pigs on farm survey group Respondents respondents holdings holdings
<100a ^ ^ 23 4 7983 ^
100 ^ <200 238 16 66 12 927 16
200 ^ <500 387 26 128 23 1615 26
500 ^ <1000 331 22 127 23 1310 22
> 1000 544 36 216 39 2224 36
Total 1500 100 560.b 100 6076 100
a
Farms with less than 100 pigs were excluded from the mailing. However despite this 4% of respondents recorded less than 100 pigs.
b
Not all of the total 576 respondents provided adequate information on pig numbers.
126 A survey of animal manures (I)

applied within the ammonia emissions inventory (Pain et al.

1998).
Feeding system also has an important effect on the total
output and analysis of the excreta. In particular, the daily
meal and water intake has been shown to correlate closely
with the rate of dung and urine production (O'Callaghan
et al. 1971) and these relationships have been confirmed by
more recent observations (Smith et al. 2000). Hence a dry or
wet feeding system will be expected to strongly influence
slurry output. Survey returns indicated that the great major-
ity (86%) of units use dry meal feeding. The wet systems are
based on swill feed (3%) and liquid feed (11%); the latter,
more commonly with a liquid to meal ratio of 3.5:1. Liquid
input for these latter rations will often be derived from
byproducts such as whey, potato waste or beer/yeast waste Figure 2. Effect of slurry storage capacity on application time. For `no -
(M. Brade, pers. comm.). storage', uniform year-round application assumed.

Manure storage The total volume of slurry stored can be estimated from
Slurry storage type and capacity is of importance both in animal numbers and standard figures for production of
terms of the effect on gaseous emissions during the storage excreta, together with an estimate of slurry output with no
period (c. 10% of ammonia emissions from pig production dedicated storage. Farms with a mix of store types are not
are attributed to storage) and the greater flexibility increased included within the data summarized in Figure 1a, but the
storage capacity offers for timing of subsequent applications slurry output from these units has been accounted for in
to land. Figure 1b, after allocation of slurry to store types on a pro -
rata basis, according to the overall distribution. It is thus esti-
Slurry storage capacity. Using estimates of storage capacity, it mated that about 25% of slurry production is stored in
is possible to gauge how the range of capacity may be affected above-ground circular tanks, 20% in earth-banked lagoons,
by store type. The data indicated that earth-bank lagoons 40% in below-ground tanks or structures (excluding slurry
had capacities ranging from less than one month's slurry pro - channels). Some 15% is not stored, though it is anticipated
duction to over 9 months (Figure 1a). Above-ground circular that most of this will be stored for short periods in below-
tanks were most commonly of 3^6 months capacity, with ground channels or cellars associated with pig buildings.
below-ground tanks or structures (excluding any slurry chan- Increased slurry storage capacity might be expected to
nels either outside or underneath buildings) the most numer- confer increased flexibility and potential for better applica-
ous category but, as anticipated, of lower volume. tion timing, particularly in terms of the potential for
improved utilization of N when slurry is applied to grassland
or growing cereal crops in the spring (e.g. Rees et al.1993; Jack-
son & Smith 1997). However, in comparing slurry application
timing stated by respondents with estimated storage capaci-
ties (Figure 2), it was found that farmers generally appear to
take little advantage of this potential. Rather more apparent
is the August-October peak of spreading activity on those
farms with 3^6, 6^9 and, even, >9 months of storage; the
likely attraction of this strategy being the dry soils and stable
ground conditions. Perceived difficulties with spreading may
also be one of the obstacles to spring application of manures
since, in the questions relating to attitude, 61% of respon-
dents indicated that, if they could `apply manures more
evenly, they would consider spring application and save ferti-
lizer costs'.

Slurry management in-store. The agitation or re- circulation

of pig slurry in- store is usually aimed at the disruption or
avoidance of a sludge layer at the base of the store, which can
cause problems at emptying. Ammonia emissions increase
with greater frequency and vigour of stirring. A few farmers
(8% respondents) used mechanical separation to produce
fibre and a separated liquid which assists store management.
A majority of farmers with earth-bank lagoons never stir the
store, perhaps on the premise that residual sludge can be
removed at some later stage, as necessary. Almost 70% of
Figure 1. Slurry storage capacity and type of storage, based on animal num- respondents with above-ground tanks regularly (once a
bers and weighted estimates of slurry production (263 respondents). week), or occasionally, agitated stores (Figure 3), presumably
 K.A. Smith et al. 127

Table 2. Machinery used to apply slurry and FYM.

Machinery No. of % Est. %
used respondents respondents manure manure
spread (t) spread
FYM
Side spreader 161 31 109362 18
Rear discharge 329 64 480321 78
Both 28 5 22761 4
Total 518 612444
Slurry
Injector 13 4 67407 11
Surface applicatora 23 7 49529 8
Figure 3. Frequency of pig slurry agitation in storage (based on store num- Low level applicatorsb 169 49 277239 44
bers). Higher level applicatorsb 85 25 93408 15
Mobile irrigator 38 11 121409 19
Static irrigator 16 5 21367 4
through concern to avoid blockages when emptying, and con- Total 344 630359
cern about potential loss of store volume. Overall, based on a
Qualified in questionnaire by e.g. trailing hoses, but appears to have been
the estimated slurry output from 217 respondents, around misinterpreted by respondents and taken to include machines with umbilical
60% of storage is agitated at some time. (trailing hose) supply.
b
Describes tankers/spreaders discharging above or below height of machine.

Land application
discharge spreaders for FYM (Figure 4b, Table 2), which are
generally capable of better precision than side discharge
Application technique. There was concern amongst farmers machines (Smith & Baldwin 1999). Moreover, after pro -rata
about the difficulty of achieving an even spreading distribu- attribution of FYM spreading for those units where both
tion pattern for manures (61% of respondents indicated that, techniques are in use, it was estimated that 82% of FYM
if they could `apply manures more evenly, they would consider (67% respondents) was spread with rear-discharge machines
spring application and save fertilizer costs'; also 29% consid- (Figure 4b).
ered it `impossible to spread manures evenly'). However, it is Questions on slurry application method included a `surface
encouraging to note that a high proportion of respondents applicator' category which was intended to cover the recently
(64%, representing 78% of the manure applied) use rear developed boom equipment designed to apply slurry directly
onto, or close to, the soil surface via trailing hoses or shoe
devices (Huijsmans et al. 1997). Only a few such machines are
yet in use in the UK; however, their use was indicated by 23
respondents (7^8% response) (Table 2) which, on the basis
of expert knowledge, is considered not to be credible. It
appears most likely that, in these instances, the respondent
has assumed the `trailing hose'description referred to all trac-
tor-mounted applicators supplied by an umbilical pipe
system, delivering slurry to the machine directly from the
slurry store; these responses have therefore been included
within the irrigator category (Figure 4a).
The survey indicated that 32% of slurry producers used
contractors to apply their slurry and, similarly, 35% of those
farms producing FYM. Typically, when contractors were
used they spread 70% of the slurry produced on a farm and
nearly 90% of FYM.
Application timing. The time of year when manure is applied
to land is of importance in terms of nitrate leaching risk; the
`Nitrate Vulnerable Zone' (NVZ) rules (MAFF 1998) include
restrictions on timing for certain manure types including
pig slurry. Ammonia emissions may also be affected signifi-
cantly by seasonal effects (e.g. Moal et al. 1995), tending to
increase following field applications under hot and/or dry
conditions.
In the original survey report (Parham1997), results are pre-
sented for all respondents who provided information on
application timing. However, since most applied manure to
more than one crop and the questionnaire did not ask for
detailed information about quantities applied, too much reli-
Figure 4. Proportion of pig manure applied by different methods, according ance should not be placed on the crop- specific timing pro -
to manure amounts and % respondents. files presented. Some respondents applied manures to single
128 A survey of animal manures (I)

Figure 6. Timing of manure application derived from (a) overall farmer esti-
mates of timing and (b) estimates for specific crops.

Figure 5. Timing of manure application to different crops and crop combi-

nations.

crops only, or perhaps to two or three related crops; in these

instances, further analysis of when (and how much) manure
was applied was possible and the results are summarized
(Figure 5a & b). The percentages were based on estimated
amounts of manure applied, and should be more reliable
than earlier estimates based only on numbers of respondents
and farmer estimates of manure distribution to crops.
The application of FYM was much reduced in the summer
months (May-July), as opportunities for application are lim-
ited in that period and the expected peak applications in
August-October, on cereal stubbles and prior to root crops
in autumn and winter, are evident (Figure 5b). Slurry spread-
ing on grass was fairly evenly distributed throughout the
year, but there was a high peak in activity of >50% pig
slurry applied in the autumn on cereal stubbles.
In addition,farmerswere asked to make their own estimate of
what percentage of the total volume of slurry and/or FYM was
applied in each quarter of the year (Figure 6a).These estimates
werecomparedtothosebasedon the amountspreadonto speci-
fic crop areas (Figure 6b).The distribution profile indicated by
data derived from these two approaches was very similar, giving
greater confidence in the application of these figures.
Comparative supporting information is available from the
NVZ baseline survey (Dauven et al. 1998), which revealed a
similar pattern in terms of the percentage of respondents
applying manures to crops, in particular, slurry to cereals
(Figure 7a) and FYM to grass, cereals and potatoes (Fig 7b).
The autumn peak for the application of both slurry and Figure 7. Farmer estimates of manure application timing to crops ^ data
FYM on cereals was again apparent. drawn from baseline survey of Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (Dauven et al. 1998).
 K.A. Smith et al. 129

abatement; these factors together, may help to explain the

>90% incorporation of FYM.

Recycling of manures for crop production

In the UK, it is generally apparent that, other than when care-
fully incorporated into a well-designed fertilizer plan,
farmer perception of the nutrient value of manures is poor.
Smith & Chambers (1995) adapted statistics on fertilizer use
from the annual British Survey of Fertilizer Practice to show
that, over a period of 6 years, fertilizer inputs on fields which
Figure 8. Incorporation of slurry and FYM following application, based on had received manure application(s) were little different from
211 responses for slurry (435 700 t) and 428 for FYM (608 500 t). those on land which had received no manure. Nevertheless,
when asked the question, farmers will mostly claim to have
made some allowance for the nutrients supplied by manures;
Removal of manure from the unit. The availability of sufficient for example, 88% of respondents in the MMB slurry survey
land for environmentally safe spreading and recycling of on dairy farms agreed that they had allowed for cattle slurry
manures from intensive pig units can be a problem, bearing nutrients applied to grassland (MMB, 1993). A similar
in mind the minimum land area requirements for certain leg- response was obtained here, so an attempt was made to
islation, e.g. within NVZs (Smith et al. 2000). In such cases understand and check these claims by comparison with
farmers need to consider arrangements for exporting man- answers to other questions, and by including some aspects of
ures to neighbouring farms. The survey indicated that 22% farmer attitude in supplementary questions.
of respondents whose farms produced FYM exported almost
80% of it to other farms; and 16% of respondents whose Allowance for phosphate and potash. Informationwas requested
farms produced slurry exported almost 75%. on use and frequency of soil analysis services, in addition to
asking about the reduction in inorganic Por K fertilizer appli-
Manure incorporation. Ammonia loss and odour nuisance cations (to take account of any manure contribution). In this
may occur following manure applications but these can be way, it was possible to identify a statistically significant trend
reduced by incorporation into soils. These losses occur towards the regular use of soil analysis amongst those farmers
rapidly, however, particularly from slurries; a number of who claimed to make allowance for manure Pand K (Table 3).
authors have shown that up to 50% of ammonia will be lost Respondents were asked to identify methods used to help
from slurries, within a few hours of application (e.g. Jarvis & them assess the nutrient content of their manures in the last
Pain 1990). Although more recent work has shown that losses 5 years; from portable on-farm tests, laboratory analysis,
from solid manures are not quite so rapid (Chambers et al. advice from consultants, average nutrient content tables or,
1997), to be effective in reducing emissions it is advised that other literature.Though almost 80% of respondents claimed
incorporation should be carried out very soon after applica- to make a reduction in fertilizer inputs following manure
tion. This should preferably be within the same day or, for
slurries, the application should be by injection or surface pla-
cement, rather than broadcast.
The results summarized in Figure 8 show there is little dif-
ference between estimates in the speed of incorporation,
either from calculated manure quantities, or from percentage
of respondents. For both slurry and FYM, only a small pro -
portion (13^23%) incorporate (ploughed-in or cultivated)
the same day, though these data do not include those farmers
injecting slurry (according to the results, 4% of farmers
injecting about 10% of slurry, Table 2 and Figure 4a). With
FYM, soil incorporation promotes mineralization of the Figure 9. Allowance for P and K supplied in pig manure and source of advice.
organic residues and stimulates nutrient release and there Statistical significance of differences associated with the different sources,
may be some additional benefit, in terms of odour nuisance according to Fisher exact test (based on 564 responses).

Table 3. Allowance for P and K supplied in manures compared to use of soil analysis.
% % No. of Average no.
respondents respondents respondents of years
analysing not analysing between soil
soils soils analyses
Respondents claiming to 79 21 355 3.5
reduce P&K applications
Respondents making no 68 32 110 3.9
reduction in P&K
applications
Fl(x) ˆ 5.49, P ˆ 0.021*.
130 A survey of animal manures (I)

on manures as a significant contribution to crop N require-

ments and, therefore, it seems likely that this, rather than a
tendency for farmers to ignore manures, is the reason why
the full benefits are not being realised. The development of a
user-friendly computer program seeks to address this issue
(Chambers et al. 1999b).

Farmer attitude towards the use of manures

Questions relating to the farmers' attitude towards the use of
manures may help to identify the main reasons for a lack of
confidence in manures as nutrient sources. The survey
indicated that most farmers (94%) disagreed that applying
manures is a time-wasting chore and that field applications
often resulted in river pollution incidents (85%). Nearly all
farmers (94%) agreed that using animal manures improved
the organic matter status of the soil, and that using manures
saves money on fertilizers (93%). In relation to whether farm-
ers felt that `if they could apply manures more evenly, they
would consider spring application and save fertilizer costs',
opinion was divided, with 61% agreeing. A similar proportion
(61%) agreed that relying on organic manure would help the
environment. Nearly 75% consider that it is possible to
spread manures evenly, and 63% believed that, when using
organic manure, they can control the amount of nutrients
being supplied to crops. These opinions show that farmers
are generally aware of the potential benefits of recycling
livestock manures, but many still have underlying concerns
about the practical difficulties of achieving even spreading of
manures and of being able to control or rely on nutrients
supplied by manures.
Figure 10. Source of advice on nutrients supplied by manures and frequency
in reduction of nitrogen fertilizer inputs following manure application.
Opinion on whether,`when using manures farmers cannot
control nutrient supply to crops', is unclear. Since this

applications (20% made no reduction), only around 40%

utilized any of the more recognised sources of advice (Figure
9). A rather greater proportion (48%) took no advice at all,
including 32% who claimed to reduce inputs. Owen (1998),
reported similar findings from the British Survey of Fertili-
zer Practice, with less than half of farmers applying organic
manures claiming to take advice on manure nutrient content
(18% consulting standard values, 27% using a consultant,
portable test meter or laboratory analysis), the rest relying on
their own judgment.

Allowance for manure nitrogen. Farmers were also asked about

the frequency with which they reduced fertilizer N inputs fol-
lowing manure (Figure 10a & 10b). The results were similar
for both slurry and FYM; around 50% of respondents
claimed `always' to make allowance for the N contribution
from slurry or FYM, the majority of these using consultants,
average nutrient content tables and laboratory analysis as
their source of advice. The proportion of respondents not
seeking advice increased markedly as the claimed frequency
of reduction in N inputs decreased (from `always' to `never')
(Figures 10a & 10b).These observations give credibility to the
way in which farmers have attempted to answer these ques-
tions and suggest that genuine attempts appear to have been
made to allow for manure N. Statistics from the annual
Survey of Fertilizer Practice (e.g. Burnhill et al. 1994), show
Figure 11. Level of agreement between opinion that, `when using manures
that farmers generally fail to achieve significant savings. farmers cannot rely on nutrient supply', and frequency of reduction in fertili-
Experience suggests that farmers lack confidence in relying zer nutrient inputs.
 K.A. Smith et al. 131

appears to be an issue of key importance, the data have been ning crop fertilizer inputs, data from this survey suggest that
compared to the frequency with which farmers claim to the majority of farmers make a genuine effort to allow for
reduce fertilizer N inputs. It is clear from the responses that manures; 80% of farmers claimed to make a reduction in P
the level of disagreement with the statement (i.e. a positive and K inputs and 50% in N inputs. However, they currently
attitude) increased with increasing frequency of inorganic fail to be assured by the advice they receive or they lack confi-
fertilizer reduction. However, the percentage of respondents dence in field spreading equipment.
agreeing with the statement also increased, indicating that Despite care in designing and framing the survey ques-
while many farmers attempt to allow for manure N, they are tions, it was clear that not all were correctly understood. The
unhappy or lack confidence in doing so (Figure 11a & b). This robustness of the response data was limited by a desire to
can be appreciated more readily in terms of the `confidence avoid involving farmers in the need to consult records which
ratio', which represents the ratio of positive opinion over might discourage them from returning the forms. It is recom-
negative ^in this case, disagreement over agreement. mended that ways are explored to improve the robustness of
It can be seen, from Figures 11a & b, that farmers who never data collected in any future survey. A `representative field'
make allowance for manure N have no confidence in the relia- concept, in which farmers were invited to choose a typical
bility of manure N. However, farmers who do claim to make field for which detailed information on cropping, manure
allowance for manure N, even `regularly' or `always', appear to and inorganic fertilizer inputs were requested, was applied
have no more confidence than those who might attempt to with apparent success in surveys conducted in Wisconsin,
reduce inorganic fertilizer inputs only occasionally. Although USA, (Nowak et al. 1998). Once the survey approach can be
this analysis does not indicate the reason for such a lack of refined, it is suggested that the process should be repeated
confidence, perceived problems associated with manure on not less than every 5^6 years, to provide information that
spreading may be important.This provides some background would help to identify any significant changes in farm prac-
for the very modest reductions in inorganic fertilizer inputs, tice as a result of policy regulation, or major initiatives in
following manure use, apparent from annual fertilizer statis- advice or promotion. The value of data collected in this way
tics (e.g. Smith & Chambers, 1995). will be enhanced with time, as trends emerge, and will help
to identify important research needs and provide policy
C O N C LUS I O N S makers with the information on which to base future policy
decisions.
The sample of farms responding to the survey reflected accu-
rately the size structure of the pig industry in England and AC K N OW L E D G E M E N TS
Wales. From the results of the survey, pig manure production The authors gratefully acknowledge funding of this research
can be estimated to consist of about 45% slurry and 55% by the Rural and Marine Environment Division, Ministry of
FYM, where calculations have been based on undiluted, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We also acknowledge the
excreta outputs. For FYM systems, farmer estimates of straw referees and the editor, Soil Use and Management, for helpful
use suggested about 0.15 t of straw addition per t of excreta. comments on the manuscript.
About 45% of slurry was stored in above-ground tanks or
earth-banked lagoons, with 40% in below-ground storage
tanks or structures (excluding slurry channels) and about RE FE RE NC ES
15% of slurry was not stored, although most of this may be Beckwith CP Cooper J Smith KA & Shepherd MA 1998. Nitrate leaching loss
held for a short period in slurry channels. Above-ground following application of organic manures to sandy soils in arable cropping.
tanks were most commonly able to contain 3^6 months of I. Effects of application time, manure type, overwinter crop cover and
slurry production, but storage capacity varied more widely in nitrification inhibition. Soil Use and Management 14, 123 ^ 130.
Brenner FJ & Mondok JJ 1995. Non-point source pollution potential in an
earth-banked lagoons, over 20% of which offer >9 months agricultural watershed in NW Pennsylvania. Water Resources Bulletin 31,
capacity. There was little evidence that increased storage 1101 ^ 1112.
capacity currently persuades farmers to spread more slurry Burnhill P Chalmers AG & Fairgrieve J 1994. Fertilizer use on farm crops
in the spring period, when the nitrogen is more likely to be 1993. British Survey of Fertilizer Practice 1994. FMA, MAFF, SOAFD.
used effectively. HMSO Scotland.
Chambers BJ Smith KA & Van der WeerdenTJ 1997. Ammonia emissions fol-
About 60% of slurry was applied by tanker, 30% by a range lowing the land spreading of solid manures. In Gaseous Nitrogen Emis-
of irrigation techniques and 10% by injection; up to 75% of sions from Grasslands, eds SC Jarvis and BF Pain. Proceedings of an
FYM was applied by rear discharge solids spreaders and International Conference, IGER, N Wyke, UK, May, 1996, 275 ^ 280,
25% using side discharge equipment. A surprisingly high CAB International,Wallingford.
Chambers BJ Pain BF Misselbrook TH & Williams J 1999a. Ammonia losses
proportion (15^20%) of slurry and FYM were claimed to be from solid and liquid manure management systems. MAFF Contract
incorporated within a day of application and a further 25% WA0632, CSG12 report, May 1999.
slurry and 50% FYM, within a week of application, presum- Chambers BJ Lord EI Nicholson FA & Smith KA 1999b. Predicting nitrogen
ably because of concern over complaints about odour. availability and losses following application of organic manures to arable
Survey results showed, overall, that autumn represents the land: MANNER. Soil Use and Management 15, 137 ^ 143.
Dauven A Crabb J & Johnson PA 1998. Nitrate vulnerable zones ^ Baseline
peak period for spreading, with 30% of slurry and 50% of survey report to MAFF, Rural Marine and Environment Division. March
FYM applied at that time. Approximately one third of farm- 1998.
ers use contractors to apply slurry and FYM and about a ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 1997. Water pollution incidents in England
fifth of farmers export much (70^80%) of their slurry and and Wales 1996. HMSO, London.
Huijsmans JFM Hol JMG & Bussink DW 1997. Reduction of ammonia emis-
FYM to neighbouring farms. sion by new slurry application techniques on grassland. In Nitrogen emis-
Although evidence, elsewhere, indicates that farmers make sions from grasslands, eds SC Jarvis and BF Pain. CAB International,
little allowance for the nutrient content of manures in plan- Wallingford, pp 281 ^ 285.
132 A survey of animal manures (I)

Jackson DR & Smith KA 1997. Animal manure slurries as a source of nitro - Pain BF Misselbrook TH et al. 1997. Ammonia emission inventory for agri-
gen for cereals; effect of application time on efficiency. Soil Use and culture in the UK (1996). Report to MAFF (Contract WA0630).
Management 13, 75 ^ 81. Parham C 1997. Animal manure practices in the Pig Industry. Survey Report
Jarvis SC & Pain BF 1990. Ammonia volatilisation from agricultural land. to MAFF.
Fertilizer Society Proceedings No 298 Fertilizer Society, London, 35. Rees YJ Pain BF Phillips VR & Misselbrook TH 1993. The influence of sur-
Lord EI Johnson PA & Archer JR 1999. Nitrate Sensitive Areas: a study of face and sub- surface application methods for pig slurry on herbage yields
large scale control of nitrate loss in England. Soil Use and Management and nitrogen recovery. Grass and Forage Science 48, 38 ^44.
15, 1 ^27. Sharpley AN & Withers PA 1994. The environmentally sound management
MAFF 1994. Fertilizer recommendations for agricultural and horticultural of agricultural phosphorus. Fertilizer Research 39, 133 ^146.
crops. MAFF Publication RB209, HMSO. Smith KA & Baldwin DJ 1998. A management perspective on improved pre-
MAFF 1998. Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water. cision manure and slurry application. In Management strategies for
MAFF Publications, London. (2nd Edition, October 1998). organic waste in agriculture, eds J Martinez and M Maudet. RAMIRAN
Mehta C & Patel N 1992. Statistical software for exact, non-parametric infer- '98, Proceedings of 8th International Conference, FAO workshop, 26^ 29
ence. StatXact-Turbo User Manual. SYTEL Software Corporation, Cam- 1998, Rennes, Cemagref Editions pp 89 ^90.
bridge, Massachusetts. Smith KA & Chambers BJ 1995. Muck: from waste to resource. Utilisation:
MMB 1993. Slurry report. Milk Marketing Board, Production R&D. January the impacts and implications. Agricultural Engineer 50, autumn 33 ^ 38.
1993. Smith KA & Chambers BJ 1998. Nutrient losses to water following land
Moal JF Martinez J Guiziou F & Coste CM 1995. Ammonia volatilization application of farm manures. In: Environmentally friendly management
following surface applied pig and cattle slurry in France. Journal of Agri- of farm animal waste, ed T Matsunaka, Proceedings of International
cultural Science 125, 245 ^252. Workshop. Sapporo, Japan. 15 ^ 29 November 1997, 79 ^ 83. Japan Interna-
Nicholson RJ & Brewer AJ 1997. Estimates of volumes and exposed surface tional Science & Technology Exchange Centre (JISTEC).
areas of stored animal slurries in England and Wales. Journal of Agricul- Smith KA Charles DR & Moorhouse D 2000. Nitrogen excretion by farm
tural Engineering Research 66, 239 ^ 250. livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling
Nowak P Shepard R & Madison F 1998. Farmers and manure management: a nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters; II. Pigs and poultry. Bio -
critical analysis. In Animal waste utilisation: effective use of manure as a resourceTechnology 17, 183 ^ 194.
soil resource, eds JL Hatfield and BA Stewart. ANN ARBOR Press, 1 ^32.
O'Callaghan JR Dodd VA O'Donoghue PAJ & Pollock KA 1971. Characteri-
zation of waste treatment properties of pig manure. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research 16, 399 ^ 419.
Owen L 1998. Use of organic manure; storage of liquid fertilizers.The British
Survey of Fertilizer Practice, 1994, Edinburgh University Data Library. Received October 1999, accepted after revision February 2000.

# British Society of Soil Science 2000