IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtu/wpaper/13_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mitigation and Heterogeneity in Management Practices on New Zealand Dairy Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Anastasiadis

    () (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

  • Suzi Kerr

    () (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

Abstract

Pastoral farming can result in adverse environmental effects such as nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the cost of mitigation and hence the socially appropriate level of tolerance for environmental effects is still unclear. Research to date within New Zealand has either estimated the costs of specific mitigation technologies or used simulation modelling at a farm scale. This is limited for two key reasons: neither approach uses data from actual implementation of technologies and practices on real farms and hence costs are speculative; and both largely treat farms as homogenous when in reality they vary greatly. We use data on 264 farms to estimate a distribution of “farm management” residuals in how efficiently nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas are used to generate production. We interpret this distribution as a measure of the potential for feasible, relatively low-cost mitigation to take place as less efficient farmers move toward existing best practice. We can explain only 48% percent of the OVERSEER-modelled variation in New Zealand dairy farms’ nitrogen use efficiency based on geophysical factors, specific mitigation technologies and practices that move emissions across farms such as wintering off animals. This suggests a potentially large role for management factors and farmer skill. In contrast, OVERSEER-modelled variation in greenhouse gas use efficiency is more easily explained by the observable factors (73%) but the potential for mitigation through management changes is still not insignificant. Using management practices that are already in commercial use, this first study using this approach suggests that improvements in nitrogen use efficiency may be able to reduce leaching by more than 30 percent, while improvements in greenhouse gas use efficiency may be able to reduce emissions by more than 15 percent; the potential varies considerably across farms.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Anastasiadis & Suzi Kerr, 2013. "Mitigation and Heterogeneity in Management Practices on New Zealand Dairy Farms," Working Papers 13_11, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:13_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/13_11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Doole, Graeme J. & Pannell, David J., 2009. "Nonpoint pollution policy evaluation under ambiguity," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48036, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Graeme J. Doole, 2010. "Evaluating Input Standards for Non-Point Pollution Control under Firm Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 680-696.
    3. Ridler, B.J. & Anderson, W.J. & Fraser, P., 2010. "Milk, money, muck and metrics: inefficient resource allocation by New Zealand dairy farmers," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96492, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Anna Strutt & Allan N. Rae, 2011. "Modelling the Impact of Policies to Reduce Environmental Impacts in the New Zealand Dairy Sector," Working Papers in Economics 11/04, University of Waikato.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marginal abatement cost curves; climate change; agriculture; greenhouse gas; heterogeneity; leaching; mitigation; nitrogen; use efficiency;

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:13_11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Maxine Watene) or (Joanne Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/motuenz.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.