|
Ahmadi, B. V., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P., & Stott, A. W. (2014). Health, welfare and profitability in Scottish sheep farms: assessing the impacts of CAP 2015 reforms..
|
|
Shrestha, S., B Vosough Ahmadi, S Thomson and A Barnes. (2014). An assessment of the post 2015 CAP reforms: winners and losers in Scottish farming..
|
Barnes, A., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S., Toma, L., Mathews, K., & Sutherland, L. A. (2014). Comparing visions for CAP reforms post 2015: Farmer intentions and farm bio-economic modelling. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: This paper illustrates the impacts of two of the potential CAP reform post 2015 scenarios using an optimising farm level model and compares results with farmers’ perception about the policy changes, captured in a farmer intentions survey. The model results suggest that beef farms suffer a loss in farm net margins under fully decoupled (up to -21%) as well as under partially decoupled scenario (up to -19%) compared to current historical single farm payments. The model also shows that farm respond by reducing the number of beef animals on farm by up to 5%. However, under a partial decoupled scenario, beef farms increase calf numbers by 15% to benefit from coupled calf payment. A survey of 1,400 beef producers with respect to their intentions toward 2020 was conducted in the Summer of 2013. A set of hypothetical payment scenarios was used to test self-reported response to a number of scenarios related to expanding and extensifying. These were compared with the modelling results and found a range of responses which could, we argue, be used for future calibration and ‘sense-checking’ of results within future modelling strategies.
|
Shrestha, S. (2015). Comparing the cost effectiveness of GHG mitigation options on different Scottish dairy farm groups (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation is one of the main challenges faced by agriculture sector especially under an increasing demand for food. Production expansion needs to be accompanied by reductions in the GHG emission intensity of agricultural products. However, any uptakes of mitigation options by the farmers depend on the cost effectiveness of adopting such options as well as the farm characteristics. A highly effective mitigation option might not be practical for a farmer if the associated costs are high. A list of mitigation option implemented on different farm types with their cost effectiveness on farms would therefore be very useful for farmers as well as policy makers to make a decision. This paper aims to explore the use of three GHG mitigation options on different dairy farm groups in Scotland and determine the cost effectiveness of each of the options in those farm groups. The mitigation options considered for this paper are; i) use of sexed semen, ii) installing and using anaerobic digester and iii) increasing the share of concentrate diet. Farm level data from the Scottish Farm Accountancy dataset (FAS) was used and a cluster analysis was carried on to identify different dairy farm groups. The potential reduction of GHG emission per farm, including emissions arising from inputs used on the farm, under each of the option is then calculated using the GLEAM life cycle assessment model. An optimising farm level model, ScotFarm, was used on each of the farm groups to determine the optimum farm net margins under a baseline situation (with no options implemented) and three mitigation scenarios. The cost effectiveness of all three mitigation options are then determined based on reduction in GHG emission per farm and change in farm net margins under those options. Initial results for the sexed semen scenario suggest that this option can be cost effective for both efficient dairy farms (-£6.26/tCO2e) and medium-sized dairy farms (-£12.56/tCO2e). No Label
|
