Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T13:22:51.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future of animal production in hill and upland areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. J. Maxwell
T. J. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB9 2QJ
Get access

Abstract

Together hill and upland agriculture (LFA) currently utilizes from 44% of the land area of the UK and employs directly some 126,000 people. An estimate of gross output from these sectors in 1990 was around £1.3 billion. These data indicate that there can be little doubt about the significance of agriculture and livestock production in hill and upland areas. Since the Second World War output has increased substantially by virtue of a better control of sheep diseases, improved grazing management, sheep and cattle husbandry and the financial incentives offered by successive governments for land improvement, fencing and buildings. However, these incentives have not in themselves led to an economically viable agriculture for most hill and upland areas.

It is questionable if it was ever the intention of any UK government that financial support for the hill and upland livestock industries to improve productivity was the sole objective of their policies for hill and upland areas. While it has always been the case that Agricultural Departments have had the major responsibility for administering the major financial support, the reason for doing so has been as much to do with a social policy of making it possible for people to live in the remoter countryside as it has been to do with improving the output and viability of agriculture.

It is therefore inconceivable that support for hill and upland economies will be withdrawn. It may be, however, that the amount of support will become less as the Common Agriculture Policy is reformed and that element of support which is currently attached to product price is progressively removed. For the future, the indications are that support is much more likely to continue on the basis of headage payments related to breeding livestock quotas and linked to specific management protocols to meet conservation and wider environmental objectives.

Even with the levels of financial support that can be reasonably expected over the next decade, the financial constraints upon, or the opportunities that may arise for individual land owners will inevitably lead to land being removed from agriculture.

However, it is likely that livestock production will continue to dominate much of the hill and upland areas within a management context which will reflect the size of the business, the need to meet specific environmental objectives and the range of other activities and employment opportunities with which the farm household is involved.

Although we must expect that the economics of animal production in the hill and upland areas of the UK will no longer justify a continuation of farming in some areas, the great majority of farms will continue to adopt more efficient technologies, improve their breeding programme and adapt their land management rôle to meet the needs of conservation and the maintenance and enhancement of landscape quality.

Type
Research Article
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 18: Livestock Production and Land Use in Hills and Uplands , January 1994 , pp. 75 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1994

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

Armstrong, H. M. 1990. Avoiding heather decline: the use of the MLURI grazing model to estimate acceptable stocking rates. In Grazing research and nature conservation in the uplands (ed. Thompson, D. B. A. and Kirby, K. J.), Research and survey in conservation no. 31, Peterborough Nature Conservancy Council, pp. 32–43.Google Scholar
Armstrong, R. H., Eadie, J. and Maxwell, T. J. 1986. Hill sheep production: a modified management system in practice. In Hill land symposium, Gahvay 1984 (ed. O'Toole, M.). An Foras Taluntais, Dublin, pp. 230–247.Google Scholar
Common, T. G., Wright, I. A. and Grant, S. A. 1992. The effect of grazing by cattle on animal performance and floristic composition in Nflrdus-dominated swards. Proceedings of third British Grassland Society research conference, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J. M. M. and Groves, C. R. 1985. The hills and uplands of the UK. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Davies, D. A., Fothergill, M. and Jones, D. 1989. Assessment of contrasting perennial ryegrasses with and without white clover, under continuous sheep stocking in the uplands. 2. The value of white clover for lamb production. Grass and Forage Science 44: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, J. 1967. The nutrition of grazing hill sheep: utilisation of hill pastures. Hill Farming Research Organisation fourth report, 1964–67, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
Eadie, J. 1985. The future contribution of the hills and uplands to agricultural output. Forest Ecology and Management, 45: 71–77.Google Scholar
Frame, J., Newbould, P. and Munro, J. M. M. 1985. Herbage production from the hills and uplands. In Hill and upland livestock production, (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 9–38.Google Scholar
Gurnett, L. R. and Waterhouse, A. 1985. The management and performance of beef cattle in the hills and uplands. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1990. This common inheritance. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. A. and Grant, S. A. 1985. The grazing ecology of hill and upland swards. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. 1991. The claim of crofting — the Scottish Highlands and Islands, 1930–1990. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Jones, J. R., Munro, J. M. M., Sibbald, A. R., Rees, M. E., Preen, R. N., Vale, J. E., Donaghy, D. T. and Deans, E. V. 1992. Evaluation of lower input upland sheep systems. British Grassland Society. In press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, T. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1986. Decision rules for grassland management. In Efficient sheep production from grass (ed. Pollott, G. E.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society no. 21, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
Maxwell, T. J., Sibbald, A. R., Dalziel, A. J. I., Agnew, R. D. M. and Elston, D. A. 1994. The implications of controlling sward height for the operation and productivity of upland sheep systems in the UK. I. Effects of two animal stocking rates in combination with two sward height profiles. Grass and Forage Science. In press.Google Scholar
McClelland, T. H., Armstrong, R. H., Thompson, J. R. and Powell, T. L. 1985. Sheep production in the hills. Hill Farming Research Organisation fourth report, 1965–67, pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1990. Farm incomes in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1992a. Our farming future. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1992b. Code of good upland management. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A. 1985. Nutritional needs of sheep in the hills and uplands. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.) occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 39–48.Google Scholar
Milne, J. A. 1994. Grazing intensity and vegetation change. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J., Parker, D. S. and Rowlinson, P.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 18, pp. 23–29.Google Scholar
Newton, J. E. and Davies, D. A. 1986. White clover and sheep production. In Efficient sheep production from grass (ed. Pollott, G. E.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 23, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Orr, R. J., Parsons, P. D., Penning, P. D. and Treacher, T. T. 1990. Sward composition, animal performance and the potential production of grass/white clover swards continuously stacked with sheep. Grass and Forage Science 45: 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. 1994. Diversification of animal species in hills and uplands. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J., Parker, D. S. and Rowlinson, P.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 18, pp. 67–73.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. and Broadbent, P. J. 1985. Nutritional needs of cattle in the hills and uplands. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 55–56.Google Scholar
Sibbald, A. R. 1990. Biological and economic assessment of potential for sheep production on heather moorland. In Modelling heather management (ed. Whitby, M. C. and Grant, S. A.), a workshop report, University of Nnccastle Upon Tyne, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
Sibbald, A. R., Griffiths, J. J. and Elston, D. A. 1991. The effects of the presence of widely spaced conifers on understorey herbage production in the UK. Forest Ecology and Management 45: 71–77.Google Scholar
Vipond, J. E. and Gunn, R. G. 1985. The management and performance of sheep on hills and uplands. In Hill and upland livestock production (ed. Maxwell, T. J. and Gunn, R. G.) occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production no. 10, pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A. 1986. Suckler beef production. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed Frame, J.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society no. 22, pp. 51–64.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., Jones, J. R. and Parsons, A. J. 1992. Performance of weaned lambs on grass/clover swards previously grazed by cattle or sheep. Proceedings of third research conference, British Grassland Society, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
Wright, I. A., Russel, A. J. F. and Hunter, E. A. 1989. Compensatory growth in cattle grazing different vegetation types. Animal Production 48: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar