Mapping Stocking Rates in PowerPoint Presentation, PPT - DocSlides

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

M

easures

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

IACS+ Examples

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 + JACJAC (LU and Stock)+ IACSCrofters + 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 mapRegional or sectoral breakdownsRelationships with other variables

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

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

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:

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