Management, feeding, production, reproduction and udder health on organic and conventional Swiss dairy farms

Organic dairy farms (OP; n=60) and conventional dairy farms (integrated production, IP; n=60), matched in size, location, and agricultural zone (altitude), were studied for possible differences in management, feeding, production, reproduction and udder health. OP and IP farms were similar in size (17.7 and 16.9 ha), milk quota (65900 and 70,000 kg/year), cow number (14 and 15), cow age (5.3 and 5.2 years), housing of cows of the Simmental x Red Holstein or Holstein breeds (87 and 75%; 45 and 60%), but differed significantly with respect to loose housing systems (18 and 7%), outside paddocks (98 and 75%), energy-corrected 305-d milk yield (5,695 and 6,059 kg), milk protein content (31.8 and 32.7 g/kg), use of bucket milking systems (73 and 33%), observance of regular (12-h) milking intervals (47 and 68%), routine application of the California-Mastitis-Test (10 and 28%), teat dipping after milking (25 and 43%) and blanket dry cow treatments (0 and 45%). Milk somatic cell counts on OP and IP farms (119 000 and 117,000/mL) and reproduction data were similar and there were no significant differences between OP and IP farms as concerns available feeds, planning and management of feeding. Alternative veterinary treatments were used more often on OP than IP farms (55 and 17%). Main causes for cow replacements on OP and IP farms were fertility disorders (both 45%), age (40 and 42%), sale (30 and 37%) and udder health (35 and 13%).Between OP and IP Swiss dairy farms thus relatively few larger differences were found.

Assessing and mapping LD and SLM to directly support the planning and scaling up of SLM interventions to combat desertification

Global investment in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) has been substantial, but knowledge gaps remain. Overviews of where land degradation (LD) is taking place and how land users are addressing the problem using SLM are still lacking for most individual countries and regions. Relevant maps focus more on LD than SLM, and they have been compiled using different methods. This makes it impossible to compare the benefits of SLM interventions and prevents informed decision-making on how best to invest in land. To fill this knowledge gap, a standardised mapping method has been collaboratively developed by the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), FAO’s Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project, and the EU’s Mitigating Desertification and Remediating Degraded Land (DESIRE) project. The method generates information on the distribution and characteristics of LD and SLM activities and can be applied at the village, national, or regional level. It is based on participatory expert assessment, documents, and surveys. These data sources are spatially displayed across a land-use systems base map. By enabling mapping of the DPSIR framework (Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) for degradation and conservation, the method provides key information for decision-making. It may also be used to monitor LD and conservation following project implementation. This contribution explains the mapping method, highlighting findings made at different levels (national and local) in South Africa and the Mediterranean region. Keywords: Mapping, Decision Support, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Ecosystem Services, Participatory Expert Assessment

Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study : an experimental study

Budgets are often simultaneously used for the conflicting purposes of planning and performance evaluation. While economic theory suggests that firms should use separate budgets for conflicting purposes this contrasts with existing evidence that firms rarely do so. We address two open questions related to these observations in an experiment. Specifically, we investigate how a planning task that is in conflict with the performance evaluation task affects behavior in budget negotiations and their outcomes. Additionally, we analyze whether a single budget can be effectively used for both purposes compared to two separate budgets. We develop theory to predict that adding a planning task that is in conflict with the superior’s performance evaluation task increases the subordinate’s cooperation in and after the negotiation of a performance evaluation budget. Moreover, we predict that subordinate cooperation increases even more when the superior is restricted to use a single budget for both purposes. Our results broadly support our hypotheses. Specifically, we find that when budgets are used for both planning and performance evaluation, this increases the subordinate’s budget proposals during the negotiation and his performance after the negotiation. These effects tend to be even larger when the superior is restricted to a single budget rather than separate budgets for planning and performance evaluation, particularly with respect to subordinate performance. In our experimental setting, the benefits of increased subordinate cooperation even more than offset the loss in flexibility from the superior’s restriction to a single budget. The results of this study add to the understanding of the interdependencies of conflicting budgeting purposes and contribute to explain why firms often use a single budget for multiple purposes.