Abstract:We investigate whether milk quota abolition in the Netherlands is likely to lead to a shift towards more intensive farms, and whether the legislation introduced by the Dutch government to prevent this from happening is likely to be effective. To this end, a mathematical programming model is developed and applied to ten Dutch dairy farms of varying size. The mathematical programming model allows us to calculate shadow prices, which we use to evaluate the stability or likelihood of a shift in the farmer decision… Show more
“…The findings of the current study, as confirmed by previous researchers, showed that producers work within a tightly constrained and regulated environment limiting their ability to determine the future of their farm according to their personal desires. This [31] showed that bigger farms are more likely to increase than other farms.…”
Dairy farming systems are evolving. This study presents dairy producers’ perceptions of their ideal future farm (IFF) to ensure revenue and attempts to determine the reasons for this choice, the environmental aspects related to this choice, the proximity between the current farm and the IFF and the requirements for reaching this IFF. Just before the end of the European milk quota, a total of 245 dairy producers answered a survey about the characteristics of their IFF and other socio-environmental-economic information. A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was carried out using seven characteristics of IFF (intensive vs. extensive, specialised vs. diversified, strongly vs. weakly based on new technologies, managed by a group of managers vs. an independent farmer, employed vs. familial workforce, local vs. global market, standard vs. quality-differentiated production). Based on the main contributors to the second dimension of MCA, this axis was defined as an IFF gradient between the local-based extensive (LBE) producers (26%) and the global-based intensive (GBI) producers (46%). The differences of IFF gradient between modalities of qualitative variables were estimated using generalised linear models. Pearson correlations were calculated between the scores on the IFF gradient and quantitative variables. Finally, frequencies for IFF characteristic and the corresponding characteristic for the current situation were calculated to determine the percentages of “unhappy” producers. Some reasons for the choice of IFF by the producers have been highlighted in this study. Environmental initiatives were more valued by LBE than GBI producers. Low similarity was observed between the current farm situation of the respondents and their IFF choice. LBE and GBI producers differed significantly regarding domains of formation (technical and bureaucratic vs transformation and diversification respectively) and paths of formation (non-market vs. market respectively). Two kinds of farming systems were considered by dairy producers and some socioeconomic and environmental components differed between them.
“…The findings of the current study, as confirmed by previous researchers, showed that producers work within a tightly constrained and regulated environment limiting their ability to determine the future of their farm according to their personal desires. This [31] showed that bigger farms are more likely to increase than other farms.…”
Dairy farming systems are evolving. This study presents dairy producers’ perceptions of their ideal future farm (IFF) to ensure revenue and attempts to determine the reasons for this choice, the environmental aspects related to this choice, the proximity between the current farm and the IFF and the requirements for reaching this IFF. Just before the end of the European milk quota, a total of 245 dairy producers answered a survey about the characteristics of their IFF and other socio-environmental-economic information. A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was carried out using seven characteristics of IFF (intensive vs. extensive, specialised vs. diversified, strongly vs. weakly based on new technologies, managed by a group of managers vs. an independent farmer, employed vs. familial workforce, local vs. global market, standard vs. quality-differentiated production). Based on the main contributors to the second dimension of MCA, this axis was defined as an IFF gradient between the local-based extensive (LBE) producers (26%) and the global-based intensive (GBI) producers (46%). The differences of IFF gradient between modalities of qualitative variables were estimated using generalised linear models. Pearson correlations were calculated between the scores on the IFF gradient and quantitative variables. Finally, frequencies for IFF characteristic and the corresponding characteristic for the current situation were calculated to determine the percentages of “unhappy” producers. Some reasons for the choice of IFF by the producers have been highlighted in this study. Environmental initiatives were more valued by LBE than GBI producers. Low similarity was observed between the current farm situation of the respondents and their IFF choice. LBE and GBI producers differed significantly regarding domains of formation (technical and bureaucratic vs transformation and diversification respectively) and paths of formation (non-market vs. market respectively). Two kinds of farming systems were considered by dairy producers and some socioeconomic and environmental components differed between them.
“…However, the intensification of dairy farming has also raised environmental concerns driven by increased manure production, as well as animal welfare concerns, such as increased lameness or unethical disposal of male calves. In the Netherlands, this has evolved into a societal debate that led to the implementation of a measure in September 2015 that restricts the further intensification of dairy farming (Groeneveld et al ., ). This legislation will most likely increase the importance of farm size for further expansion and limit intensification in the Netherlands, as farms are required to purchase additional land if they want to increase their dairy production.…”
Section: Implications For Sustainable Intensification Policymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, the intensive nature of the Dutch dairy system has raised concerns especially regarding manure application; this is because EU dairy farming is bound by environmental regulations through the EU Nitrates directive that limits the amount of nitrogen and phosphate that can be put on the land. Consequently, the Dutch government implemented the ‘Dairy Law’ in January 2015 to prevent further excesses of nitrogen and phosphate on farms (Groeneveld et al ., ). …”
Summary
The milk quota abolition in 2015 set in motion major adjustments in the EU dairy sector and considerable differences in expansion and contraction of milk production are observed across Member States. Despite significant differences in production methods, Ireland and the Netherlands are among the EU countries that achieved the largest dairy production growth rates. This article compares and contrasts Irish and Dutch dairy farms that intensified and expanded production. To this end, Farm Accountancy Data Network data of specialised dairy farms are used and Principal Component Analysis was performed with a view to assessing common themes and differences in intensification efforts. In both countries, farms that intensified their production have higher gross investments and larger dairy herds, when compared to the average dairy farm in their country. The Principal Component Analysis revealed farm size variables, dairy specialisation and direct payments, as well as investments and financial leverage as common themes of intensification, with differing importance in the two countries. Implications of intensification for policies to ensure longer‐term sustainability are discussed.
“…In April 2015, the EU milk quota system was abolished, both in response to an increasing global demand for milk and agreements on trade liberalisation in global dairy markets (EU 2015). Small farmers, farmers in mountain areas or those with higher production costs are very likely going to suffer without the protection of the quota system (Groeneveld et al 2016).…”
The European dairy sector is currently facing unprecedented challenges under a transforming policy and a market regime. The expected changes will have relevant consequences for land use, the landscape, and the environment in rural areas dominated by dairy farming. Within this context, the aim of this paper is twofold. First, key characteristics of milk production in the region of North Karelia will be illustrated. Secondly, some light will be shed on dairy farmers' challenges and adaptations to the dairy sector's structural changes, and to what extent they contribute to the resilience of agricultural systems. In the light of an evident milk crisis, the findings suggest that farmers' key challenge is the profitability of running a dairy enterprise. One of the consequences of the poor economic situation is the pressure to make investments in the conditions of a constantly changing policy. Flexibility and the ability to understand future trends are fundamental in adapting to socio-economic changes and unpredictability. Adaptation to unpredictability would not be possible without a key characteristic of farming activity: agriculture is not only a source of an income, but also a way of life, a sense of belonging to the land that significantly affects farmers' decision-making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
