Firstly, thank you so much to all those who responded to our call for evidence to capture current farm activity and investment intentions to help support the NFU’s response to Defra’s published intentions to review extending environmental permitting regulations to the cattle sector.
In total, across the livestock and beef sectors, over 1,500 members responded, of which nearly 700 were dairy farmers (equal to around15% of English milk producers).
As expected, the survey demonstrated the already high uptake on dairy farms across England of best practice measures and technology aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of their businesses, measures which are not all being captured or recognised in national data or policy decisions.
Survey results
Dairy farms are already investing, or looking to invest, heavily in environmental improvements:
- 89% of respondents are in one or more environmental scheme.
- 70% have plans for future infrastructure investment.
- Soil testing among dairy farmers is an established practice, with at least 60% of farmers testing NPK, pH and SOM every three to five years.
- Significant investment has already been made in slurry pumps, agitators, separators, low-emission spreading kit and slurry storage.
- Many respondents highlight recent spending on slurry stores, lagoons, roofing and clean/dirty water separation
Additionally:
- Nearly 100% are scraping/cleaning collecting yards (something not recognised in official statistics, but which has a key role to play in reducing ammonia emissions).
- 88% of respondents have a system for keeping clean and dirty water separate – with another 5% planning to invest in it in the future (a key “non-compliance” in the EA’s (Environmental Agency) data.
- 98% of all respondents have a Nutrient Management Plan.
Investment barriers
The survey also highlighted barriers to investment:
- Nearly 60% cite access to capital as a barrier to infrastructure investment.
- 32% cited planning constraints – with Natural England requirements noted as a key source of complexity.
- Many respondents reported that planning requirements and wait ti,e are disproportionate to the scale or environment risk of their projects.
Appetite for investment, given the right support schemes and incentives, was extremely high – slurry (61%), water (49%), nutrient (42%) and housing (46%) management grants were all rated highly as 'very useful'.
Some respondents noted that the usefulness of grants are stunted by the bureaucracy that comes with them, cash flow and poor farmgate prices.
Nearly half of farmers (48%) said they engage with the EA and, interestingly, 59% said they had received an EA inspection in the last 2 years. 82% of those said the inspection was “advice-led”.
However, there were repeated concerns around:
- Lack of consistency between inspectors.
- Concerns around practicality.
- Frustration over grant and planning delays.
- Cost of compliance.
Key points voiced by farmers:
Complexity – grants are overly complex and time consuming, putting many off applying.
Affordability – Upfront costs remain too high, even with funding, due to tight margins and limited cashflow.
Infrastructure – investment is needed in core areas such as slurry storage, silage clamps and housing.
Bureaucracy – Planning requirements and red tape often outweigh the benefits of grant funding.
Inflation – Grant funding can inflate prices, reducing the real value to farmers.
Rigidity – Funding is too rigid and not aligned with farm-specific needs or timing of investment.
These results have already fed into our discussions with Defra, the EA and wider industry stakeholders and will help the NFU respond to Defra’s consultation on environmental permitting, expected later 2026/early 2027.
