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
 Datasets
 Calculations
 Complications
 Outputs
 Applications
 Future CAP Activity Measures
 Designated Sites
 Water Quality
 Woodland Expansion
 SG-RPID dataset derived from SAF forms - claims
 >5M ha coverage in 2009, increasing
 Linked to field mapping (GIS)
 Land use, ownership, rentals etc.
 Livestock numbers (and several other items for related
 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
 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
 JAC (LU and Stock)+ IACS
 Crofters + JAC – shares,
apportionments and inbye
 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.
 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
 National SR map
 Regional or sectoral
 Relationships with other
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
• 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
 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
 Dr Keith Matthews
The James Hutton Institute
Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen
Email: [email protected]
 Dr James Sample
Email: [email protected]

similar documents