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. ID: 252403
DownloadNote - The PPT/PDF document "Mapping Stocking Rates in" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentations text content in Mapping Stocking Rates in
Slide1
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
Slide2
Outline
Datasets
Calculations
Complications
Outputs
Applications
Future CAP Activity
M
easures
Designated Sites
Water Quality
Woodland Expansion
Slide3
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
Slide4
IACS+ Examples
Slide5
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
Slide6
Complications & Compromises
IACS + JACJAC (LU and Stock)+ IACSCrofters + JAC – shares, apportionments and in-bye JAC + JAC - not mapped – some limits on rentals data, type not specified.
Slide7
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.
Slide8
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
Slide9
Outputs
National SR mapRegional or sectoral breakdownsRelationships with other variables
Slide10
Future CAP: Activity Requirements
Example of an SR base activity requirementSR value was 0.12 lsu/haUsed scale-back from Pack Inquiry not the guillotine of the agreed regulationSignificant effects
Slide11
Designated Areas
Discussion of activity measures for Pillar 1 CAP and Areas of Natural Constraint in Pillar 2 Range of SRs for combinations of designationsUnmapped area significant
Slide12
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
Slide13
Woodland Expansion Advisory Group
10,000 ha per annum
afforestation aspiration
Consequences for livestock numbers
Regional and land capability break-down
of SR areas
Slide14
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
Download this presentation
DownloadNote - The PPT/PDF document "Mapping Stocking Rates in" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentations text content in Mapping Stocking Rates in
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
Slide2Outline
Datasets
Calculations
Complications
Outputs
Applications
Future CAP Activity
M
easures
Designated Sites
Water Quality
Woodland Expansion
Slide3Datasets
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
Slide4IACS+ Examples
Slide5SR 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
Slide6Complications & Compromises
IACS + JACJAC (LU and Stock)+ IACSCrofters + JAC – shares, apportionments and in-bye JAC + JAC - not mapped – some limits on rentals data, type not specified.
Slide7Rental 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.
Slide8Limitations
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
Slide9Outputs
National SR mapRegional or sectoral breakdownsRelationships with other variables
Slide10Future CAP: Activity Requirements
Example of an SR base activity requirementSR value was 0.12 lsu/haUsed scale-back from Pack Inquiry not the guillotine of the agreed regulationSignificant effects
Slide11Designated Areas
Discussion of activity measures for Pillar 1 CAP and Areas of Natural Constraint in Pillar 2 Range of SRs for combinations of designationsUnmapped area significant
Slide12Water 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
Slide13Woodland Expansion Advisory Group
10,000 ha per annum
afforestation aspiration
Consequences for livestock numbers
Regional and land capability break-down
of SR areas
Slide14Conclusions
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
Slide15Contacts
Dr Keith Matthews
The James Hutton Institute
Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen
Email:
keith.matthews@hutton.ac.uk
Web:
http
://
www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/keith-matthews
Dr James Sample
Email:
james.sample@hutton.ac.uk
Web:
http://
www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/james-sample
Slide16Slide17Slide18Slide19Slide20Slide21Slide22Slide23Slide24Slide25Slide26