Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:04:02.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of the factors affecting the future intentions of Irish dairy farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2011

S. O'DONNELL ,
B. HORAN ,
A. M. BUTLER  and
L. SHALLOO
S. O'DONNELL
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland UCD School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
B. HORAN
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
A. M. BUTLER
Affiliation:
UCD School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. SHALLOO*
Affiliation:
Dairy Production Department, Teagasc, Moorepark Production Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

EU milk quota deregulation has forced many farmers to reconsider the factors that will limit milk production into the future. Factors other than milk quota such as land, labour, capital, stock, etc. will become the limiting factor for many in a post-EU milk quota scenario. While it can be postulated what the limits to production will be in a post-quota scenario, how farmers react will determine the future direction of the industry. In order to determine the future attitudes and intentions and to identify the key factors influencing farmers who intend to expand, exit, remain static or contract their businesses in the future, a survey of a large group of Irish commercial dairy farmers was carried out. The telephone survey sample was chosen randomly, based on a proportional representation of suppliers to the largest milk processor in Ireland. The sample (780 suppliers) was broken down by quota size (five quota categories, Q1–Q5), supplier region and system of production. The sample was analysed to determine the effect of key survey variables on the future intentions of dairy farmers. The survey was completed by 659 suppliers (0·82 of the sample). The proportions of farmers intending to expand were 0·28, 0·47, 0·61, 0·61 and 0·56, respectively, for Q1–Q5, while the proportions intending to exit were 0·27, 0·18, 0·08, 0·09 and 0·08, respectively. Farmers who were intent on expanding had larger total farm areas, larger milk tank capacity per litre of milk quota, more modern milking facilities, more available cow housing and more housing that could be converted at a relatively low cost and were more likely to have a successor. Of those expanding, 0·60 wanted milk quotas abolished, while 0·36 of those planning to exit wanted milk quotas abolished. The level of expansion was affected by business scale, dairy stocking rate, the additional labour required with expansion and total and milking platform farm size.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 149 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 647 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abare., (2002). Australian Farm Surveys Report 2002 – Financial performance of Australian farms 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Canberra, Australia: ABARE.Google Scholar
Abildso, C. G., Zizzi, S., Abildso, L. C., Steele, J. C. & Gordon, P. M. (2007). Built environmental and psychological factors associated with trail proximity and use. American Journal of Health Behaviour 31, 374–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battershill, M. R. J. & Gilg, A. W. (1997). Socioeconomic constraints and environmentally friendly farming in the Southwest of England. Journal of Rural Studies 13, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, S. & Saupe, W. E. (1990). Exits from Farming in Southwestern Wisconsin, 1982–1986. Agricultural Economics Report No. 631. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Bewley, J., Palmer, R. W. & Jackson-Smith, D. B. (2001). An overview of experiences of Wisconsin dairy farmers who modernized their operations. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 717–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, G. E. (2002). The Competitiveness of Irish Agriculture. Report for the Department of Agriculture and Food. Dublin: Irish Farmers Journal and the AIB Group.Google Scholar
Breustedt, G. & Glauben, T. (2007). Driving forces behind exiting from farming in Western Europe. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, A. (2004). The 2003 CAP reform; implications for the EU dairy sector. Outlook on Agriculture 33, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. & Harvey, D. (2004). The Future of UK Dairy Farming. London: Milk Development Council, Department of Food and Rural Affairs and Dairy Industry Association Ltd.Google Scholar
Connolly, L., Kinsella, A., Quinlan, G. & Moran, B. (2007). National Farm Survey 2007. Oakpark, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture Food and Rural development (DAFRD). (2006). Compendium of Irish Agricultural Statistics. Dublin: DAFRD.Google Scholar
Dillon, P., Crosse, S., Stakelum, G. & Flynn, F. (1995). The effect of calving date and stocking rate on the performance of spring-calving dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 50, 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P., Hennessy, T., Shalloo, L., Thorne, F. & Horan, B. (2006). Long term vision for the Irish Dairy industry. In New Vision for the Irish Dairy Industry: Proceedings of the Teagasc National Dairy Conference 2006, 15–16 November 2006, pp. 16–34. Limerick, Ireland: Teagasc. Available online at: http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2006/20061115.asp (verified 4 Oct 2010).Google Scholar
Donnellan, T. & Hennessy, T. (2007). The effect of milk quota ‘expansion’ on EU/Ireland production. In Exploiting the Freedom to Milk: Proceedings of the Teagasc National Dairy Conference 2007, pp. 1–19. Kilkenny, Ireland: Teagasc. http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2007/53/53_NationalDairyConf2007.pdf (verified 8 Dec 2010).Google Scholar
Franks, J. R., Cain, P. J. & Farrar, J. (2002). Economic efficiency in milk production: scale and non-scale effects. Farm Management 11, 243–265.Google Scholar
Fry, J. C. (1999). Biological Data Analysis. A Practical Approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gasson, R., Crow, G., Errington, A., Hutson, J., Marsden, T. & Winter, D. M. (1988). The farm as a family business: a review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraud, D. & Baker, J. R. (2005). Farm and ranch succession in a rural California county: Extending the Farm Transfer Project. In Proceedings of the 2005 RSS Annual Meeting, Tampa, Florida, August 10–13, 2005. Abstract no. 37. Provo, Utah, USA: Rural Sociological Society. Available online at: http://ruralsociology.org/index.php?L1=left_Home.php&L2=staticcontent/annualmeeting/2005/proceedings.php (verified 4 Oct 2010).Google Scholar
Glauben, T., Tietje, H. & Weiss, C. (2002). Intergenerational succession on family farms. In Proceedings of the EAAE 10th Congress in Zaragoza, August 2002. (on CD-Rom). The Hague, The Netherlands: EAAE.Google Scholar
Greene, J., Speizer, H. & Wiitala, W. (2007). Telephone and web: mixed mode challenge. Health Services Research 43, 230–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L. E., Massey, J. T., Nichols, W. L. & Wakesberg, J. (2001). Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hadley, G. L., Harsh, S. B. & Wolf, C. A. (2002). Managerial and financial implications of major dairy farm expansions in Michigan and Wisconsin. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2053–2064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, A. (1975). Farmers and Farm Business in England. Department of Agricultural Economics & Management, Miscellaneous Study. No. 62. Reading, UK: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Hennessey, T. (2005). Explaining the Labour Allocation Decisions of Irish Dairy Farmers in the Context of Decoupling. Carlow, Ireland: Rural Economy Research Centre, Teagasc.Google Scholar
Hennessy, T., Shalloo, L. & Dillon, P. (2005). The economic implications of complying with a limit on organic nitrogen in a decoupled policy environment – an Irish case study. Journal of Farm Management 12, 297–311.Google Scholar
Horan, B., Dillon, P., Faverdin, P., Delaby, L., Buckley, F. & Rath, M. (2005). The interaction of strain of Holstein–Friesian cows and pasture based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavalov, B. (2004). Biofuel Potential in the EU. Report from the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Brussels: European Communities. http://biodiesel.pl/uploads/media/biofuels_future.pdf (verified 5 Oct 2010).Google Scholar
Kimhi, A. (2000). Is part time farming really a step in the way out of agriculture?? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lips, M. & Reider, P. (2005). Abolition of raw milk quota in the European Union: a CGE analysis at the member country level. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mccarthy, S., Horan, B., Dillon, P. G., O'Connor, P., Rath, M. & Shalloo, L. (2007). Economic comparison of divergent strains of Holstein–Friesian cows in various pasture-based production systems. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1493–1505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mcgregor, M., Willock, J., Dent, B., Deary, I., Sutherland, A., Gibson, G., Morgan, O. & Grieve, B. (1995). Links between psychological factors and farmer decision making. Farm Management 9, 228–239.Google Scholar
Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition on the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78, 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Business Research Institute (NBRI). (2007). Telephone Surveys. Available online at: http://www.nbrii.com/Deploy_Surveys/Telephone_Surveys.html (verified 5 Oct 2010).Google Scholar
O'Donnell, S., Shalloo, L., Butler, A. & Horan, B. (2008). A survey analysis of opportunities, challenges and limitations of Irish dairy farmers. Journal of Farm Management 13, 421–436.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, K. (2008). Labour efficiency on Irish dairy farms. PhD thesis, University College Dublin. Ireland.Google Scholar
Rae, A., Nixon, C. & Lattimore, R. (2003). Adjustment to Agricultural Policy Reform – Issues and Lessons from the New Zealand Experience. Workshop on Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment, Imperial College, Wye, 23–25 October 2003. Wye, UK: Imperial College.Google Scholar
Rogers, S. & Salamon, S. (1983). Inheritance and social organisation among family farmers. American Ethnologist 10, 529–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. (1974) Grassland Productivity 1. Nitrogen and soil effects on yield of herbage. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 275–291.Google Scholar
SAS (2002). SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 8, Edition 2002. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., Rath, M. & Wallace, M. (2004 a). The Luxembourg common agricultural policy reform agreement: Irish dairy farmer's development options. Journal of Farm Management 12, 91–104.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L., Dillon, P., O'Loughlin, J., Rath, M. & Wallace, M. (2004 b). Comparison of a pasture based system of milk production on a high rainfall, heavy clay soil with that on a lower rainfall, free draining soil. Grass and Forage Science 59, 157–168.Google Scholar
Shalloo, L., O'Donnell, S. & Horan, B. (2007). Profitable dairying in an increased EU milk quota scenario. In Exploiting the Freedom to Milk. Proceedings of the Teagasc National Dairy Conference 21–22 November 2007, Kilkenny, pp. 20–45. Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Speicher, J. A., Nott, S. B. & Stoll, T. L. (1978). Changes in production, cash flow, and income with dairy herd expansion. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 1242–1249.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. J. (1979). The effect of drainage conditions on grassland production. In Water Control and Grassland Productivity. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society Winter Meeting, December 1979, pp. 1.1–1.11. Hurley, UK: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Thomson, K. J. & Tansey, A. W. (1982). Intentions surveys in farming. Journal of Agricultural Economics 33, 83–88.Google Scholar
Thorne, F. S. (2005). Examining the competitiveness of cereal production in selected EU countries. Journal of Farm Management 12, 313–328.Google Scholar
Valdes, A. (1994). Agricultural reforms in Chile and New Zealand: A Review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, S. & Helming, J. (2006). European Dairy Policy in the Years to Come: Impact of Quota Abolition on the Dairy Sector. The Hague, The Netherlands: Agricultural Economics Research Institute.Google Scholar