« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Introduction
The aim of this study was to assess to what extent information collected from the Single Application Form ( SAF) could be used to meet the statistical requirements of the June Agricultural Census ( JAC) and how much the JAC could be streamlined or combined with the SAF as a result.
To achieve this aim there were five objectives set for this study namely:
(i) To describe the commonality and differences between the JAC and SAF both in terms of concepts and practical delivery.
(ii) To quantify the level of duplication in data collection between the JAC and SAF.
(iii) To describe the difference in holding/business populations between those submitting SAFs and those contained within the scope of JAC.
(iv) To compare data from the JAC and SAF datasets at both the aggregated and individual unit level and to assess the suitability of SAF data for statistical purposes.
(v) To identify current and potential developments related to the JAC and SAF which could have a bearing on closer integration of these two data collections.
Methods
Objective (i) was achieved by a detailed review of all available documentation concerning the JAC and SAF and in-depth discussion with key members of staff responsible for the SAF and JAC.
Objective (ii) was achieved through assessing both how the JAC and SAF are collected (i.e. the design decisions on which data are collected) and the outcomes (i.e. which data were available).
Objective (iii) was achieved by merging the JAC and SAF datasets at the unit level for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The relationships between holdings on the JAC register (both main and minor holdings) and holdings/businesses on the SAF dataset for each year were then analysed. Assessing the actual impact of the differences between the two datasets was complex, due to the fact that the two have to be compared at a number of levels. The distinction between holdings and businesses is a key issue in constraining the comparisons that can be made between JAC questions and SAF items. Using the SAF field data sheets as building blocks it is possible to compare results at holding level between the SAF ( SAF( FDS) and the JAC ( JAC-all). For livestock questions the situation is more complex. JAC records livestock numbers at the holding level, but SAF returns for livestock numbers need only be made at the business level which can comprise multiple holdings. This means that for comparisons to be made between the SAF livestock numbers (referred to as SAF-L) and JAC for livestock items, the JAC data need to be grouped into businesses (referred to as JAC-b).
Objective (iv) was achieved by considering for every possible item or group of items on the JAC, the extent that results match with those on the SAF dataset at the unit level and at the aggregate level, for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Two approaches were used. One involved an individual comparison on a holding-by-holding or business-by-business basis of the JAC and SAF values for each comparable Item ( CI)- these individual comparisons are then aggregated to give overall national figures and breakdowns by size, Farm Type and NUTS4 region. This compare-then-aggregate ( CA) strategy can consider only those holdings or businesses common to both datasets. In contrast the second approach considers the two dataset separately. For the comparable items in each dataset aggregated values are calculated for the national, size, Farm Type and NUTS4 regional groupings. These aggregated values are then compared. This is the aggregate-then-compare ( AC) strategy.
Objective (v) was achieved through using the outputs from Objectives (i) to (iv) to form the basis of the discussion concerning current, planned and future developments of JAC- SAF in a structured workshop with key members of the staff. These discussions identified both the opportunities for and potential constraints on the closer integration of the two datasets.
The report is structured as follows:
Section 1 describes the JAC and SAF in terms of their commonality and major operational and administrative differences.
Section 2 outlines both the practical and operational issues on the use of the SAF
Sections 3 & 4 provides an extensive analysis of the SAF and JAC data for the period 2005 to 2007, focusing at both holding/business levels, as well as the individual and aggregated level.
Section 5 reports on the workshop conducted with staff to understand the impact and issues for merging the SAF and the JAC.
« Previous | Contents | Next »