Presentation on theme: "Mapping Stocking Rates in Scotland: Integrating JAC and IACS data Keith Matthews, Dave Miller, James Sample and Sarah Dunn Agricultural Statistics User."— Presentation transcript:
Mapping Stocking Rates in Scotland: Integrating JAC and IACS data Keith Matthews, Dave Miller, James Sample and Sarah Dunn Agricultural Statistics User Conference, July 2013, Edinburgh
Outline Datasets Calculations Complications Outputs Applications Future CAP Activity Measures Designated Sites Water Quality Woodland Expansion
Datasets IACS SG-RPID dataset derived from SAF forms - claims >5M ha coverage in 2009, increasing Linked to field mapping (GIS) Land use, ownership, rentals etc. JAC Livestock numbers (and several other items for related projects) Other datasets Common Grazings – beyond those in IACS National Forest Inventory (decadal) Linkage – holding numbers, FID-Holding-BRN
SR Calculation Forage area – land use classification (IACS crop codes) Livestock numbers – simplified classes – cattle, sheep and deer Conversion to livestock units (LSU) – weightings Cow-calf = 1.0 Ewe-lamb = 0.12 Deer = 0.3 Simplification – JAC will support much more detailed calculations – see SAC Farm Management Handbook SR = LSU/Forage Area
Complications & Compromises IACS + JAC JAC (LU and Stock)+ IACS Crofters + JAC – shares, apportionments and in- bye JAC + JAC - not mapped – some limits on rentals data, type not specified.
Rental Issues Rentals only accounted for in seasonal SAF sheets Business not holding But - mismatch ~150,000 ha - rental-in by non IACS – no matching record for the rental-out Rental-in only specified as business not holding (issue when multi-holding business – which livestock to associate) In raw IACS data some coding issues, e.g. claims for all area even though renting records exist. Rules based clean up, limiting to GIS areas, rental-in prioritised as most reliable.
Limitations Business level Single date Averages over all grazing land – mixed businesses particularly challenging – e.g. SW dairy and Highland sheep in separate holdings Other factors may mitigate or exacerbate any consequences of stocking – e.g. availability of housing
Outputs National SR map Regional or sectoral breakdowns Relationships with other variables
Future CAP: Activity Requirements Example of an SR base activity requirement SR value was 0.12 lsu/ha Used scale-back from Pack Inquiry not the guillotine of the agreed regulation Significant effects
Designated Areas Discussion of activity measures for Pillar 1 CAP and Areas of Natural Constraint in Pillar 2 Range of SRs for combinations of designations Unmapped area significant
Water Quality: Nitrates Directive Review SR estimates spatial distribution of manure production IACS data used to infer application rates of inorganic fertilisers Used as inputs to a spatially distributed nitrate leaching model (NIRAMS II) Map surface and groundwater monitoring as one strand of evidence in the 2013 Nitrates Directive review
Woodland Expansion Advisory Group 10,000 ha per annum afforestation aspiration Consequences for livestock numbers Regional and land capability break-down of SR areas
Conclusions Feasible – useful despite some limits Improvements – a move to holding basis would eliminate cross-holding averages – rentals issues can be solved New cattle movement datasets from CTS now underpin JAC so more sophistication possible here Move beyond SR – lifecycle of livestock within EPIC exposure to environments and linkage to disease Future CAP activity criteria – if SR based, then a far more rigorous set of calculations will be needed
Contacts Dr Keith Matthews The James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://email@example.com://www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/keith-matthews Dr James Sample Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://email@example.com://www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/james-sample