The floods that have swamped Britain are likely to cost the country £3 billion in lost farm produce and reduced earnings from tourism, according the economic analysis.

This figure is on top of the £3 billion costs estimated by the insurance industry, which is dealing with claims for thousands of households and business premises.

It is significantly lower than the £8 billion lost as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak six years ago, but for individuals the catastrophe will be no less marked.

Besides the misery caused for thousands by the widespread lack of running water, there is also a crisis for livestock and pets.

Many farmers were desperately attempting to find clean water for dairy cattle last night, and owners of livery stables and equestrian centres also need water for their horses.

The RSPCA said that it knew of 29,000 dairy cattle on 300 farms in Gloucestershire which needed water.

Neil Robinson, 36, who has 340 cattle on his farm at Forthampton, near Tewkesbury, has had no clean water since Saturday and has had to pump water out of two wells.

He is also having to dump about 4,500 litres of milk a day because vehicles cannot reach the farm to make collections.

The RSPCA has already spent £300,000 rescuing animals from the floods that have hit central England and has now made a public appeal for donations to help this work.

Despite the financial hardship facing farmers and owners of hotels, restaurants, attractions and outdoor activity centres in the flood-stricken areas, the overall impact on the economy will be minimal.

Paul Dales, an economist with Capital Economics, who published the assessment yesterday, said that he believed the cost to Britain would be less than 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product, between £2 billion and £3 billion.

He said that the main casualties were crops and vegetables and that there had been some loss in milk yield. There would also be a temporary downturn in tourism in towns and areas such as Stratford-upon-Avon and the Cotswolds.

He said that visitors would choose other parts of Britain or stay longer in London, so that any cash losses in one area would be made up in another.

Mr Dales gave warning that food prices were likely to rise because costs to farmers had risen. A huge loss of cereal crops meant that there was less hay and silage available for farmers to feed their animals. This would increase the price of meat and milk.

Dairy farmers have also had to keep cattle indoors for weeks because of the wet weather. This means that the animals have not been grazing in the fields and have had to be fed on hay and silage which was intended for the winter months.

Mr Dales said that there would also be some disruption to productivity with people unable to travel to work, deliveries failing to reach their destination, and homes and business premises damaged.

He suggested, however, that the effects would be short-lived and that there would also be a boost in construction as cash was spent on repairing homes and buildings.

He said: “The upshot is that, as disastrous as the floods are to those directly affected, our best guess is that overall economic impact may be to reduce agricultural output by a near-negligible £2 billion to £3 billion, or 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product.

“This sits comfortably with the historical precedents provided by similar disasters, such as foot and mouth, where the initial concerns were out of proportion with the ultimate impact on the economy.”

David Fursdon, president of the Country Land and Business Association, gave warning of exceptional hardship for many farmers with land under water.

There is no automatic right for compensation, but the EU does allow some limited compensation for farmers suffering serious effects of national disasters.