Ráðunautafundur - 15.02.1989, Qupperneq 21

-13-
They also indicate some of the variations in farming strategy practised. For
example Farm C operated the most traditional, mainly store lamb, system based on
relatively low inputs, apart from labour. A moderate financial performance was
helped by economies of scale lowering unit costs of production. Farms A and E
which had the highest financial return did so largely because of the higher than
average stocking rates. Farms A had the highest proportions of in-bye and was able
to keep cattle as well as fatten a proportion of his lambs. Farm E depended solely
on sheep and sale of store lambs.
The two farms with the lowest financial performance failed to compensate for
high fixed costs by increasing their output.
Clearly two strategies are relatively successful (1) - low input-output systems
with economies of scale and (2) - increased intensity of operation but with due
regard to ensuring that increased costs are covered by higher output.
In all cases, however, the financial viability of the farms are dependent on the
receipt of subsidies. Farm A has the lowest dependence on subsidies while Farm C
is probably operating closer to conservation objectives and therefore could justify
its lower performance relative to its dependence on subsidies.
THE ROLE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Rangeland carrying capacity
Traditional systems of sheep farming have, by trial and error and astute judgement,
evolved a stocking level that would be economically and ecologically acceptable to a
particular range (Ellis-Williams, 1988). This is a solution which is close to a
definition of carrying capacity as ’the maximum intensity of use an area will
continue to support under a particular management regime without inducing a
permanent change in the biotic environment maintained by that management’.
Recent financial incentives may have caused a break with this tradition in some
areas, for example - evidence of overgrazing on common land (Owen, 1988) and
some farms exhibiting a decline in average size of ewe (Pinder, 1988).
Many attempts to establish a methodology for determining the carrying capacity
of rangeland for sheep have been made. The problem is be-devilled by the complex
interactions of sheep and vegetation, particularly in areas of complex mosaics of
vegetation. In Wales a major investigation into the distribution of free-grazing
sheep on rangeland was made from 1956-1968 by Hughes and his associates working
from the Nature Conservancy Council and Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Bangor
(Hughes et al„ 1975).
Fifty six census plots were established on different vegetation communities
throughout Snowdonia, their size varying from 0.20 to 6.88 ha. Total numbers of
sheep over the census plots were recorded from weekly observations. Vegetation