IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ubfred/313251.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Single plots or shares of land - How modeling of crop choices in bio-economic farm models influences simulation results

Author

Listed:
  • Pahmeyer, Christoph
  • Kuhn, Till
  • Britz, Wolfgang

Abstract

In bio-economic farm models, crop choices are generally depicted as shares of land types which are aggregates of plots with similar characteristics. The ongoing process of digitalization allows access to highly detailed, spatially explicit farm data and facilitates to represent single plots instead. In our paper, we examine how different approaches to model crop choices influence the results of an arable farm in a bio-economic model. Three possible approaches are considered: ‘single plots’ with one crop per season, crop shares of land differentiated by soil type, called ‘categorized’, and crop shares on all arable land, termed ‘aggregate’. The analysis is conducted using a highly detailed, spatially explicit dataset of 8,509 arable farms located in the German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Our analysis indicates that the ‘aggregate’ and ‘categorized’ land endowment approaches produce similar simulation results, which however diverge from the ‘single plot’ approach. We find that on average, crop choices per farm differ by 11% between the spatially explicit ‘single plot’ and the ‘aggregate’ land endowment approach in our case study region. Total work requirements are found to be on average 10% higher in the ‘aggregate’ approach compared to the ‘single plot’ approach, while energy requirements are relatively similar (average difference of 2.2%). Among other factors, we find the difference to be highly correlated with the number of plots a farm is endowed with. For instance, the average difference in crop choices increases from the sample average of 11% to 20.8% for those farms that are endowed with less than 10 plots (~ 50% of the case study population). Differences in simulated farm profits when comparing the ‘aggregate’ land endowment approach to the ‘single plot’ approach are found to range between -306 €/ha to 434 €/ha (mean: 4.57 €/ha, median: - 9.93 €/ha, S.D.: 71.47 €/ha). Our results suggest that for bio-economic farm analyses focusing on aggregate results over a larger sample of farms, both the ‘aggregate’ and ‘categorized’ land endowment approaches are sufficiently accurate in case of similar average numbers of plots per farm as in our study. If single farm results or variability in the population are targeted, we propose to incorporate the ‘single plot’ approach in bio-economic farm analyses. The same holds for decision support systems focusing on individual farm responses to policy changes or technology adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Pahmeyer, Christoph & Kuhn, Till & Britz, Wolfgang, 2021. "Single plots or shares of land - How modeling of crop choices in bio-economic farm models influences simulation results," Discussion Papers 313251, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ubfred:313251
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.313251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/313251/files/Dispap_21_01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.313251?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Crop Production/Industries; Farm Management; Land Economics/Use; Production Economics; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:ubfred:313251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zefbnde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.