Written answers
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Agricultural Productivity
Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the analysis that has been done on a county or regional basis in regard to agricultural productivity in the dairy, beef and sheep sector; and the linkages that have been established, if any, between the level of production and the size of the single farm payment. [17622/13]
Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My Department has primarily used stocking density to measure agricultural productivity. While stocking density does not represent all the elements of agricultural productivity, it is a tangible and precise measurement of activity where data from my Department is readily available. The following analysis has been carried out at national level as part of my Department’s analysis of CAP reform options.
The table below sets out the stocking density rates derived from the 2010 SPS database, expressed in categories of payment per hectare, and with arable land excluded. This shows that, in general, farmers with payments per hectare above the national average (€272/ha) had significantly higher stocking densities that farmers with payments below the national average. Of course there would be individual exceptions to these results. It seems reasonable to infer that most of the farmers on high payment rates per hectare must have had a high stocking density in the original reference period for decoupled payments, as this would explain why their payment rates are above average in the first place.
Payment category € per ha, 2010 SPS database | No. of farms | Average Stocking Density per ha* |
|---|---|---|
| zero payment, some area | 76 | n/a |
| 0 to 20 | 1,991 | 0.35 |
| 20 to 50 | 4,204 | 0.31 |
| 50 to 100 | 10,462 | 0.45 |
| 100 to 150 | 13,137 | 0.71 |
| 150 to 200 | 15,400 | 0.99 |
| 200 to 244.87 | 15,109 | 1.23 |
| <€244.87 (<90% of nat avg) | 60,379 | 0.80 |
| 244.87 to 272.07 (90% to 100%) | 9,230 | 1.39 |
| 272.02 to 300 | 9,529 | 1.48 |
| 300 to 350 | 14,376 | 1.60 |
| 350 to 400 | 10,992 | 1.72 |
| 400 to 450 | 6,814 | 1.79 |
| 450 to 500 | 4,124 | 1.81 |
| 500 to 550 | 2,692 | 1.81 |
| 550 to 600 | 1,681 | 1.81 |
| 600 to 650 | 1,070 | 1.82 |
| 650 to 700 | 697 | 1.89 |
| 700 to 750 | 416 | 1.75 |
| 750 to 800 | 356 | 1.89 |
| 800 to 850 | 208 | 1.90 |
| 850 to 900 | 140 | 1.85 |
| 900 to 950 | 77 | 1.74 |
| 950 to 1,000 | 78 | 1.65 |
| 1,000+ | 221 | 1.92 |
| >272.07 (>100% of nat avg) | 53,471 | 1.68 |
| TOTAL | 123,080 | 1.24 |
* Stocking density calculated as: total area minus arable area, divided by total livestock units
Previous analysis by my Department found that, even when examined at District Electoral Division (DED) level, there was a considerable variation in stocking densities between individual farmers, with those on higher payment rates having a higher stocking density than those on lower payment rates.
No comments