Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Best mower for 300ac of stewardship grass
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Feldspar" data-source="post: 6755418" data-attributes="member: 386"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>(230x5) - (9x30) = £880/ha difference between the two options.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 [USER=166]@Brisel[/USER] 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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Taking the above paragraph in line with the above calculations, it does bring me back to [USER=16562]@digger64[/USER]'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 [USER=3169]@Hindsight[/USER]'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.</p><p></p><p>Any thoughts on the above anyone?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Feldspar, post: 6755418, member: 386"] 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. 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. 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 [USER=166]@Brisel[/USER] 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? 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. Taking the above paragraph in line with the above calculations, it does bring me back to [USER=16562]@digger64[/USER]'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 [USER=3169]@Hindsight[/USER]'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. Any thoughts on the above anyone? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
Best mower for 300ac of stewardship grass
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top