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

OutlineDatasets

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

IACS+ Examples

SR CalculationForage 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 & CompromisesIACS + 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 IssuesRentals 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

OutputsNational 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 AreasDiscussion 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 Group10,000 ha per annum afforestation aspiration

Consequences for livestock numbers

Regional and land capability break-downof SR areas

ConclusionsFeasible – 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

ContactsDr Keith Matthews

The James Hutton InstituteCraigiebuckler, AberdeenEmail: keith.matthews@hutton.ac.ukWeb: http://www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/keith-matthews

Dr James SampleEmail: james.sample@hutton.ac.ukWeb: http://www.hutton.ac.uk/staff/james-sample