The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Appendix 7: Summary of Quantitative Survey

Awareness of the Monitor Farm Programme

Of the 538 questionnaires returned, 4% had been members of a monitor farm programme. (24 in number). Of those who had not been involved, 78% had heard of Monitor Farms previously, showing that the programme has achieved widespread awareness nationally. Looking at the different regions, awareness was generally high across all the regions and varied from 62% in the Northern Isles to 92% in the Borders, as illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Awareness of Monitor Farms by On the Ground Region

Base: 405

Table 1: Main ways farmers have obtained knowledge of the Monitor Farm programme

The farming press has been particularly influential in disseminating knowledge of the programme and across all age groups and regions. There would seem to be some regional differences in how knowledge of the programme emanates - farmers in Forth, Highlands and Dumfries and Galloway were slightly more likely to hear of Monitor Farms through another farmer (23%, 22% and 22% respectively), while those in Clyde Valley were less likely (6%). Industry newsletters would seem to be slightly less important in Forth and Clyde Valley (11% and 12% respectively). Farm Advisor/Consultant was a more important source in the Borders (29%) while less important in Clyde Valley (6%), Highlands (6%) and Ayrshire (8%). Farmer discussion groups seem to be more important in Borders (15%) and Dumfries and Galloway (11%).

Of those who quoted industry newsletters, (71) those which were most read by farmers were SAC (31%), NFU (13%) and Scottish Farmer (10%). Others mentioned included QMS (8%), Farming Leader (7%) and Press, Peter Cook, Press and Journal Newspaper, McFitosh Donald, MDC, SEERAD, First Milk, Farm North West (all 1%).

Of those who mentioned farm advisors/consultants (60) SAC was overwhelmingly mentioned the most (67%) and particularly in Grampian and Moray (80%).

Rating of Understanding of the Programme

Of those who had heard of the Monitor Farm programme, (405) 40% rated their understanding of what is involved as either 'very good' or 'good' (5% very good), 36% rated this as 'could be better' and 23% felt that they 'don't know much'. There was a slightly younger bias (49% of under 45 yr group and 44% of 45-54 yr age groups vs 32% of 55-64 yr and 35% of 65+ group rated their knowledge as either 'very good' or 'good'.

Figure 11: Rating of Understanding of the Monitor Farm Programme by On the Ground Region

Base: 405

Note Base size in Western Isles very small

There were some regional differences in how farmers rated their understanding of what was involved in the programme. This was highest in the Borders - 62% of farmers in this region rated their understanding as 'very good' or 'good' (10% as 'very good'). This compares to 26% in Highlands, 28% in Forth, 29% in Clyde Valley and 39% in the regions of Dumfries & Galloway and Argyll. Conversely the highest rating of 'don't know much' was in Western Isles (40% but low base size) and Argyll (39%).

Awareness of Monitor Farms

There was a spread of awareness of all 16 farms, with the Highlands farm achieving greatest awareness. Awareness of the role of the farm as a monitor farm was also high.

Table 2: Awareness of particular Monitor Farms

11% of respondents had actually visited the monitor farms; Fearn Farm, Tain received the most visits (15).

Table 3: Reasons given for not visiting Monitor Farms

Regional base sizes- Tayside (40), Northern Isles (18), Argyll (18), Dumfries & Galloway (46),
Borders (48), Forth (47), Ayrshire (26)

The numbers do need to be treated with a degree of caution, as base sizes are small in some regions. Nevertheless, the data seems to suggest some regional differences in perceptions of the usefulness of the programme and who it is open to.

The younger age groups were more likely to say they didn't have time and hadn't been invited.

Subjects Heard About Through Monitor Farms

Table 4: Subjects heard about through Monitor Farms

The 61+ age group is less likely than other age groups to have read or heard about any subject area in association with monitor farms. Looking at regional trends, those in the Borders and Argyll are slightly more likely to have heard about buildings and infrastructure improvements.

Subjects which Provided New Knowledge or Lead to Changes being Implemented

88 respondents (22%) said that some topics did provided them with new knowledge - the 3 main topics were the top three listed in Table 4 above.

47 respondents believed that some topics had led them to implement change: Improving livestock performance and efficiency (4%), Animal Health and Welfare (5%) and Improved Grassland Management and Performance (3%).

Only 30 respondents (7%) listed subject areas where they intend to implement changes: Improving livestock performance and efficiency (3%), Improved Grassland Management and Performance (3%) and Animal Health and Welfare (2%), Farm Business Management (2%), Buildings and Infrastructure Improvements (2%), Improving Management of Farm Wastes.

Topics where More Information is Required

Almost a quarter (24%) of respondents would like information on particular topics, the key ones being:

• Improving livestock performance and efficiency (14%). This was more important to those in Forth (21%)
• Improved grassland management and performance (12%), particularly Northern Isles (22%), Clyde Valley (18%) and Forth (17%)
• Buildings and Infrastructure Improvements (10%),
• Animal Health and Welfare (9%) and in Forth (15%)
• Farm Business Management (9%) and more so in Northern Isles (17%)
• Improving Crop Management and Performance (8%) and in Argyll (17%), Tayside (15%), Forth (13%) and Clyde Valley (12%)
• Improving Marketing/Marketability of livestock/crops (8%) and in Argyll (17%)
• Improving Environmental Conservation (5%) and in Tayside (10%)
• Other sources of income - diversification (7%) and in Clyde Valley (18%) and Argyll (17%)
• Improving management of farm wastes (5%), particularly Forth (12%)
• Other sources of income - non food crops (4%), particularly Forth (12%) and Tayside (10%)
• Improving relations with the wider community (3%), particularly Argyll (11%) and Tayside (8%)

15% expected to see increases in financial performance through the monitor farm programme: 9% less than 5%; 5% between 5% and 9% and 1% between 10% and 25%.

50% of sample would like to know more about the monitor farm programme. Of those who did not (46%) the reasons are illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Reasons for not wishing to know more about the Monitor Farms programme

Base: 237

One fifth of those who did not wish to know more about the programme were not interested or did not think it would be of benefit. This was particularly so in Clyde Valley (38%), Dumfries and Galloway (36%) and Ayrshire (30%). Age is also a consideration - particularly in Northern Isles (31%), Ayrshire (25%) and Tayside (24%) and shortage of time was a reason particularly given in Borders (27%), Northern Isles (23%) and Forth (19%). One in eight already receive too much information on other things or are already aware of the programme. 20% of farmers in Tayside and Grampian and Moray agree with this.

Other reasons mentioned were (1%) each:

• Never heard of the Monitor Farms programme
• Would need to know more to find out if Monitor Farms were of value
• Shortage of labour
• Too small an enterprise
• No two farms are the same
• Have been invited to local Monitor Farm already
• Cautious/wary of success of Monitor Farming
• Disagree with funds being used to support Monitor Farms

Of those who said they would like to know more about the Monitor Farms programme, two thirds specified particular areas. Broadly the advice requested pertained to Monitor Farms, (what they are about, benefits of them, results of main issues monitored, financial results, where they are and how to visit), Record keeping, Crop management, Animal health, Improving profitability, Environmental schemes and Availability of grants.

The most requested method of receiving information was as a leaflet/hard copy through the post (60%). Other key methods were Demonstration at a current Monitor Farm (26%), Email (25%), Demonstration at another farm whose location is better (25%), Website (19%), Group meeting not on a farm (8%).

« Previous | Contents | Next »