|
|
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., Ahmadi, B. V., Thomson, S. A., & Barnes, A. (2013). Scottish beef and sheep farms – will they be affected under greening of the CAP..
|
|
|
|
Shrestha, S., Abdalla, M., Hennessy, T., Forristal, D., & Jones, M. B. (2015). Irish farms under climate change – is there a regional variation on farm responses? J. Agric. Sci., 153(03), 385–398.
Abstract: The current paper aims to determine regional impacts of climate change on Irish farms examining the variation in farm responses. A set of crop growth models were used to determine crop and grass yields under a baseline scenario and a future climate scenario. These crop and grass yields were used along with farm-level data taken from the Irish National Farm Survey in an optimizing farm-level (farm-level linear programming) model, which maximizes farm profits under limiting resources. A change in farm net margins under the climate change scenario compared to the baseline scenario was taken as a measure to determine the effect of climate change on farms. The growth models suggested a decrease in cereal crop yields (up to 9%) but substantial increase in yields of forage maize (up to 97%) and grass (up to 56%) in all regions. Farms in the border, midlands and south-east regions suffered, whereas farms in all other regions generally fared better under the climate change scenario used in the current study. The results suggest that there is a regional variability between farms in their responses to the climate change scenario. Although substituting concentrate feed with grass feeds is the main adaptation on all livestock farms, the extent of such substitution differs between farms in different regions. For example, large dairy farms in the south-east region adopted total substitution of concentrate feed while similar dairy farms in the south-west region opted to replace only 0.30 of concentrate feed. Farms in most of the regions benefitted from increasing stocking rate, except for sheep farms in the border and dairy farms in the south-east regions. The tillage farms in the mid-east region responded to the climate change scenario by shifting arable production to beef production on farms.
|
|
|
|
Özkan, Ş., Vitali, A., Lacetera, N., Amon, B., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., et al. (2016). Challenges and priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens in the context of climate change. Environ. Res., 151, 130–144.
Abstract: Climate change has the potential to impair livestock health, with consequences for animal welfare, productivity, greenhouse gas emissions, and human livelihoods and health. Modelling has an important role in assessing the impacts of climate change on livestock systems and the efficacy of potential adaptation strategies, to support decision making for more efficient, resilient and sustainable production. However, a coherent set of challenges and research priorities for modelling livestock health and pathogens under climate change has not previously been available. To identify such challenges and priorities, researchers from across Europe were engaged in a horizon-scanning study, involving workshop and questionnaire based exercises and focussed literature reviews. Eighteen key challenges were identified and grouped into six categories based on subject-specific and capacity building requirements. Across a number of challenges, the need for inventories relating model types to different applications (e.g. the pathogen species, region, scale of focus and purpose to which they can be applied) was identified, in order to identify gaps in capability in relation to the impacts of climate change on animal health. The need for collaboration and learning across disciplines was highlighted in several challenges, e.g. to better understand and model complex ecological interactions between pathogens, vectors, wildlife hosts and livestock in the context of climate change. Collaboration between socio-economic and biophysical disciplines was seen as important for better engagement with stakeholders and for improved modelling of the costs and benefits of poor livestock health. The need for more comprehensive validation of empirical relationships, for harmonising terminology and measurements, and for building capacity for under-researched nations, systems and health problems indicated the importance of joined up approaches across nations. The challenges and priorities identified can help focus the development of modelling capacity and future research structures in this vital field. Well-funded networks capable of managing the long-term development of shared resources are required in order to create a cohesive modelling community equipped to tackle the complex challenges of climate change.
|
|
|
|
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P., & Stott, A. W. (2015). Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms. J. Agric. Sci., 153(04), 676–688.
Abstract: The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.
|
|
