Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
gave the right answer (yes) to the last question, namely whether it is
important to register possible positive results on the nutrient balance sheet.
With regard to the internal analysis, four of the farmers mentioned
'shortage of nitrogen' as the major obstacle of the introduction of MINAS.
Five mentioned 'the low organic matter content in the soil' as an obstacle.
In general, the latter group consisted of the farmers who did not mention
'nitrogen shortage' as a problem. Analysis of their current fertilisation
tactic showed that three farmers indicated a wrong obstacle; four farmers
indicated a potential obstacle which however was not applicable given their
yield levels, and only two farmers indicated their real obstacles.
When the optimal tactic resulting from the interactive simulation
was compared with the tactic indicated before the simulation session,
significant differences were found. The farmers' expectations about the use
of nitrogen fertiliser did not agree with the results of the simulation. Most
workshop attendees expected to have to reduce the amount of nitrogen
applied in order to avoid being taxed for nitrogen surpluses, yet simulation
showed that this would not be necessary. Seven farmers expected that they
would have to reduce the amount of manure they spread on the fields, but
the simulation results agreed with only two of them. Almost all participants
expected MINAS to depress yields, but the simulation model showed that
such an effect could easily be avoided. In general, the nutrient surplus per
hectare farmers expected was much higher than the surplus calculated by
the simulation model. In conclusion, the farmers were much too negative
about the effects of MINAS and this was reflected in too stringent
modifications to their fertilisation management. Comparison of the original
fertilisation plans with those of the simulation session resulted in quality
scores for synthesis of 2, 1, 0.5 and 0 points for 1, 2, 2 and 4 farmers,
respectively.
4.2 Technical efficiency
The TE values of farmers with regard to indirect energy use are presented
in Table 2.2. The results show that the average TE values, measured in
units energy per unit revenue, and measured per unit physical output were
similar for the two groups except for sugar beet where the participants
score lower. Furthermore, the results show that there is considerable scope
for improvement of the efficiency: the average TE values range from 61 %
at farm level to 33% in sugar beet. The scores between the individual crops
differ significantly.
Table 2.3 shows a significant positive rank correlation between TE
for indirect energy of fertiliser use at the farm level with TE for winter
wheat.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search