Best mower for 300ac of stewardship grass

HarryB97 said:

We run a spearhead stubble master 500 which is a great bit of kit and much better than the Bomford and Mcconnell machines we used before. Completley flat deck for easy cleaning, full walking axles for smooth running, depth control on each pair of axles not just the central ram, 3 lifting and mulching blades per rotor so it leaves no tufts or lines and the grease nipples are on the outside of the UJs for easy maintenance. I would buy some bottles of tyre sealant for the rear tyres though. I have a friend which runs a 6 metre flail which is very impressive but incredibly heavy!View attachment 856162View attachment 856163View attachment 856164

Click to expand...

Frank-the-Wool said:

I am only a simple livestock farmer and do have a batwing topper which if the grass gets away makes a fantastic job of cutting and mulching it. You do need quite a few horse power but I presume as an arable farmer this won't be an issue.
However what puzzles me is that if you have a Blackgrass problem I would have thought there were much better options than planting some really awful grass mixes which do little or nothing for the wildlife and will only take nutrients out of your soils. You are in an area where there is a good demand for high quality hay or to plant forage crops that could be grazed by sheep. 300 acres is a large enough block to make this work and if you decide to go back into cropping again leaves you more flexibility.
I guess there are no fences or boundaries but I think you would regret going into one of these schemes, we winter graze some of this stewardship grass and until it naturally replaces with clover and better grass it will almost starve the hardiest sheep.

Click to expand...

Feldspar said:

Do you have any particular models in mind?

Click to expand...

HarryB97 said:

We run a spearhead stubble master 500 which is a great bit of kit and much better than the Bomford and Mcconnell machines we used before. Completley flat deck for easy cleaning, full walking axles for smooth running, depth control on each pair of axles not just the central ram, 3 lifting and mulching blades per rotor so it leaves no tufts or lines and the grease nipples are on the outside of the UJs for easy maintenance. I would buy some bottles of tyre sealant for the rear tyres though. I have a friend which runs a 6 metre flail which is very impressive but incredibly heavy!View attachment 856162View attachment 856163View attachment 856164

Click to expand...

Sorbaer said:

Like the flat deck compared to my multicut 460 as it can be a pain to clean! Do you cut my grass with it and how do you get on with it? Can't see any reason why the stubble master 500 wouldn't be as good as cutting grass than my 460 multicut, if anything more blades the better!

Click to expand...

Feldspar said:

I am just sitting down to do the numbers between GS4 and AB8. I have to say on the surface of things it does seem that the payment rates are a bit out of kilter.

Hi, I have only looked at these various options superficially. Brief comments below. Not particularly well thought out, so apologies for that. Bear in mind I am an observer, rather than practitioner.

I had kinda assumed the GS4 was designed with intention of offering an opportunity to incorporate grazing livestock which would generate an income (AB8 does not afford other opportunities to generate an income). So of interest to farm businesses currently with ruminant stock, or keen to operate a 'share' system of grazing. And of interest maybe more in the west of the country where mixed farms. AB8 seems to fit a farm with little livestock infrastructure, such as fences, gates, water to fields etc, and little interest in livestock (?! heresy to say that maybe these days !?). I assume therefore primarily in the East, but not exclusively. As such are the payment rates out of kilter?

AB8 gives 5 x 539 = £2,695 / ha over the 5yr agreement. Compared to GS4, the establishment costs will be the same roughly (although that assumes seed costs are the same - need to check this) – I'll assume £250/ha for both options. The difference to me between the two will be having to top the AB8 probably about 9 times during the 5 year period on a conservative estimate. NAAC mowing rates are £30/ha, but with sharing a mower and using existing labour and machinery (and this depends on how much spare capacity we have on these) I reckon our true costs would be sub £20/ha. Let's use £30/ha to be conservative.

This means the additional cost of AB8 is 9 x £30/ha. But it pays an additional £230/ha each year. Putting this together I get:

(230x5) - (9x30) = £880/ha difference between the two options.

Thanks for your thought out costings. Reassured they ally to my literal fag packet figures (or should I say vaping figures these days!) Concur with you conclusion.

And this is where the numbers feel unfair. For GS4 you would seed the ground in August of year 1. I don't know how long until that land would be useful to grazing livestock? 6 months? 12 months? Assume it's 12 months from the start of an agreement (would be Jan 2021 for me). The option ceases on Dec of the 5th year, so that leaves 4 years within the life of the scheme when you would expect a grazing income. But that grazing income has to beat 880 / 4 = £220 / ha / yr, and with GS4 you can't graze for a 5 week period in early summer to allow the mix to flower. A few people have PMed about grazing, and they will read this and can obviously let me know, but my assumption is that they are not going to be able to afford these sorts of rents.

Other considerations which might shift the above numbers. If someone wants to graze AB8 in the summer it could save a mowing pass, but as @Brisel has said, this is introducing complexity and risk of non-compliance. Alternatively, if GS4 with livestock will impact soil fertility in a more positive way than AB8, that is obviously a good thing, but how do I value this?

Think it depends if you want stock grazing in situ on any of the fields you are entering into Mid Tier (regenerative agriculture I think I see that termed?). If an objective then GS4. Alternatively, if the objective is to maximise income from removing a field or part field from production then AB8, without the hassle of stock, or none available (sorry to graziers said to tease). AB8 would suit a landowner who just desires an income - owner occupier or maybe landlord taking back control of tenanted land, especially if poor quality, for whatever reason. Just my immediate thoughts.

When we sat down as a family a while back to discuss our strategy in the current volatile and uncertain times, our overriding decision was to simplify and diversify our business. This has meant cutting down our arable production in favour of a sizeable stewardship scheme with a lot of fallow in it. The majority view was that with big uncertainty over our trading relationships with other countries means there are increased risks in crop production and perhaps even more so in some types of livestock farming (certainly this is what the AHDB impact assessments show). We, therefore, decided to batten down the hatches and try and be as resilient as we could until things sort themselves out and we can perhaps return to growing more crops again.

Yes, I have followed your other threads and assumed as such.

Taking the above paragraph in line with the above calculations, it does bring me back to @digger64's point, that is they have set these payment rates to give greater rewards to the less risky option and lower rewards to the (admittedly more complicated) option that allows an opportunity for more 'normal' farming. To get to @Hindsight's point, is this actually what they want? In an ideal world I'd like to opportunity to someone to make use of the ground, but given the current climate, unless there's a sizeable numerical advantage, I know that our collective decision will be to take the simpler and less risky option. Bit of a topsy turvy world at the moment it feels. I think they are going to have to think very carefully about how they set these ELMS up.

Although I love a conspiracy theory, I do not think there is a overt attempt to drive ruminant livestock off land by means of AB8. Despite me teasing.

I enjoy reading Digger64 comments.

From his various posts, in many of which he rails against the BPS / Stewardship payment system, leading to high rents, I have kinda assumed he is a hard working beef/sheep ruminant livestock farmer without a central owned farm, who scratches a living by picking up odd bits of ground. I could well be completely wrong with those assumptions - such is the joy of TFF. As such am sure he and his kind would look kindly on GS4, it might well provide opportunities for arable farmers without stock and graziers to form symbiotic arrangements with the GS4 payment as income support for the landowner/host farmer.

I sense a torture in your deliberations. A desire to have ruminant stock on the ground, to assist someone like Digger64, but the reality is I suspect your land has no fences, little if any water and life without stock would be easier. Whether this is an opportunity missed for your soil - well that is beyond me.

I must at some stage actually ask someone from Natural England / Defra what are the objectives of the various options, rather than make broad biased assumptions.

Best wishes,

Any thoughts on the above anyone?

Click to expand...

Feldspar said:

Do you have any particular models in mind?

Click to expand...

Feldspar said:

Considering putting about 300ac into AB8 or AB15 stewardship grass. It requires topping to control black-grass and aid establishment in the case of AB15, and topping to keep grasses under control, smash up cuttings and allow flowers through in the case of AB8.

Not quite sure how big a mower I will need, but fairly sure our ageing 3m flail mower will not be enough. Was thinking something more like 5-6m. Main question is whether to get a bat-wing or a flail mower. I cannot have big tufts of grass left over. For AB15 you can cut regularly so won't dealing with huge new growths of grass and no fertiliser is used. For AB8 thought the summer cut is the only one and so there is a fair bit of material that needs mulching. Don't want to have to cut and collect as there is no real use of for this locally and it complicates the job.

Only other alternative is to find someone who wants 300ac of summer grazing for sheep who will eat all the cuttings!

Click to expand...

Feldspar said:

That's handy to know and could work well. AB8 doesn't produce a huge amount of biomass, but it would have the benefit of removing the cuttings which is preferable to mulching them from Natural England's point of view at least.

Click to expand...

DanM said:

If you start removing the organic matter your going to be missing out on opportunity to improve the soil. Balers, chasers etc won’t help your structure

Click to expand...