two more major changes introduction of cattle tracing system data and review of tiff methodology
DESCRIPTION
Two more major changes Introduction of Cattle Tracing System data and Review of TIFF methodology. Agricultural Census Main survey at start of June, smaller survey at start of December Database of all agricultural holdings in Scotland Data covers land use crops grown - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Two more major changes
Introduction of Cattle Tracing System dataand
Review of TIFF methodology
Agricultural Census
• Main survey at start of June, smaller survey at start of December
• Database of all agricultural holdings in Scotland
• Data covers• land use• crops grown• livestock numbers• ownership/tenancy of land• employment• machinery
• Cattle• split into 22 categories by age, sex and
dairy/beef• also 8 categories on numbers bought/sold in
last year
History of the Cattle Tracing System
• UK and EU efforts to improve confidence in beef following the BSE outbreak.
• computerised system launched in GB in Sept 1998 (already one in NI).• EU requirement by the end of 1999.• run by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS), based in Workington -
part of DEFRA.
How it works• cattle registered to farm at birth.• ear-tagged with unique ID number, electronic and “paper passport”.• recorded each time moved.• recorded at death.• able to trace exact whereabouts of each animal at any point (in theory)• …so able to trace where it’s been in event of disease outbreak.• DEFRA fill in any gaps in life histories.
How do the data compare?
• 50,000 cattle in 1.8 million (about 3%)• consistently more in CTS than in the census
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
cens
us
cens
us
cens
us
cens
us
cens
usC.T.
S.
C.T.
S.
C.T.
S.
C.T.
S.
C.T.
S.
head
of c
attle
1 cow represents 10,000 cattle
Are we OK about these differences?
• CTS notionally 100% coverage (particularly after cleaning), compared to 70% response and rest imputed (dairy farms particularly bad).
• comparison at individual farm level showed bigger differences amongst those with imputed data.
• administrative, legal requirement rather than trusting farm records.• landless cattle owners not included in the census, but are in CTS.• differences not related to any particular category.• does anyone care about the actual number, or is it just the changes?
Any other issues?
• categories not always the same.• no split between dairy and beef – use breed info, then others on farm.• need to change time series.
Any other benefits?
• full data compared to non-response and partial coverage in December.• other data on births, fallen stock, exports and imports, needed for
economic modelling of industry, and on breeds.• reduction in burden on census admin team.• reduction in burden on farmer – on all farms, not just the CAP ones.
Review of TIFF methodology
National estimate of total net income across the farming sector, based on outputs, costs and subsidies.
Used in the compilation of Scottish GDP and UK National Accounts.Methodology regulated by EC.
income costs0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
cereals
potatoesother cropshorticulture
finished livestock
store livestock
livestock products
capital formationincome; other agric activities
non-agric activities
subsidies
feedstuffs
seeds
fertilisers and lime
farm maintenance
miscellaneous expenses
FISIMnon-agric activities
consumption of fixed capital
hired labour
net interestnet rent
Cereals Use individual yields for different cropsOther crops New seed potato price survey : changes to assumptionHorticulture Price data from SRuC survey : use % change in cereal yield for latest yearFinished livestock Improved prices and assumptions and correct some anomaliesStore livestock Improve calculation of net export income and costsLivestock products Milk quota data for volume, detailed BFREPA data on eggsCapital formation Technical correction to scalingOther activities (see “Expenses” below)
Feed Census data used for scaling up FAS, all pigs included not just finisherSeed & fertiliser Small corrections to modellingExpenses Methodology for estimated costs in horticulture (not in FAS) changed.
Previous use of SGM not viable given improved info on covered crop. DEFRA hort cost and FAS non-hort activities per hectare applied to horticulture, plus SGM-related methodology for non-hort area.
Labour RPI inflator applied to insurance, redundancies, trainingInterest Correction to methodologyRent -
Plus normal updates of first and second estimates
Jan 2013 changes
Comparison of 2011 and 2012 published estimates
Largest changesMilk & eggs Use of quota and BFREPA data + £78mCosts Revision to FAS modelling - £77m
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
previous
new
£ m
illio
ns
Cereals Grass seed & turf prices?Other crops Better estimates for mushroom?Horticulture Better estimates for flows, shrubs, etc.?Finished livestock Full review going on. Also inclusion of CTS dataStore livestock Full review going on. Also inclusion of CTS dataLivestock products Need to work on replacement for milk quotaCapital formation Full review going on. Also inclusion of CTS dataOther activities -
Feed Improve calculation of pig and poultry feedSeed & fertiliser Some assumptions need to be validatedExpenses EC requirement to use standard outputs and revised farm-types will
change weightingsLabour Some improvements in modelling?Interest -Rent Improved tenancy survey data and improved modelling of rental housing
estimatesReworked spreadsheets to make less prone to human errorPlus normal updates of first and second estimatesPublish full documentation
Jan 2014 changes
Can you help?
Area of expertise?Check out how we model that areaBetter data sources?